Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of karlpauls@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=hVHq8/+b4MzzpV2ss/bAhMoZECO1r7lvWiOxFMMaUZjiRff0ewh1XkS/OIEopBGOwR
         drUjg77dfe2XdAWHqySbAUqTXb0oWgyeqWZZA9nIS78wbqsIGHOOPLvQzgATikghRd4u
         Wbsk0N1GKZ/oiEKqS0OQf+Sj4mG8fq9ZlQzKg=
Message-ID: <487a994c0808201537j3202b5bfnef589772ed7a2935@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:37:11 +0200
From: "Karl Pauls" <karlpauls@gmail.com>
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release OSGi Modules 1.2.0
In-Reply-To: <48AC9106.5050505@ungoverned.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48AC2D29.1070906@apache.org> <48AC5AAF.3070209@ungoverned.org>
	 <48AC5D95.1090606@apache.org> <48AC9106.5050505@ungoverned.org>

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm.
>>>
>>> +1 for core.
>>>
>>> Essentially, +1 for compendium, but I am not sure since it now depends
>>> on Foundation 1.2.0, but I don't think any changes were made to
>>> foundation, so I am not sure we should be doing a release on it. (Sorry,
>>> I didn't notice that you did last time.) Of course, it is not the end of
>>> the world if we release it, since it gives them all the same version
>>> number, but I don't believe it has changed at all.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I noticed that we/I forgot to update the copyright dates in
>>> the NOTICE file, I committed that. See? It sucks having those in there.
>>> ;-) We should also update to the improved NOTICE file format.
>>>
>>> Well, what should we do about foundation 1.2.0 and compendium's
>>> dependency on it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> :) well, actually I could have asked before doing it this way...
>> anyways, i think it's nicer to have all three modules with the same
>> version that's why I included the foundation module (although there
>> were no changes). So I think we should just go with these :)
>>
>> If we don't want to release foundation 1.2.0 now, I can recut a
>> compendium 1.2.1 release - no problem.
>>
>
> Well, we can let other people chime in. I don't have a strong opinion on it.

I don't think it matters much. They are just stub classes anyways. I
don't like doing a release only for the version but I don't think we
have to stop this vote because of this either.

regards,

Karl

> -> richard
>
>> Carsten
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com