geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:19:30 GMT
Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is  
my fault.

But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released.  I've  
already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making  
changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other  
enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs  
and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.

I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting  
on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor.   
I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no  
confusion as to which is which.

In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is  
cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new  
release is cut for the changes.  If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits  
in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix  
iterations.

While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo  
server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote...  
that the server release is a bit different.  I don't think this needs  
to be or should be the case for other projects.  I believe it is  
much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the  
release and then make the release.

Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.  This  
is an internal project used to support internal builds.  I don't  
expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care.  So, I still  
recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight  
and vote is 1.1.

--jason


On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released?  We  
> need to keep the version number the same.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Okay, I'm canceling this vote.  I've removed the clover bits from  
>> Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for  
>> 1.1 soonish.
>>
>> Thanks for all of your input.  Sorry I jumped the gun and created  
>> the release before the vote.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm  
>>>>> being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a  
>>>>> community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are  
>>>>> addressing that responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> Mmmkay.  I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software  
>>>>> license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has  
>>>>> been a bit of an unknown to me...
>>>>>
>>>>> from
>>>>> Product: Clover
>>>>> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
>>>>> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
>>>>> Expiry: Never
>>>>> Maintenance Expiry: Never
>>>>> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
>>>>> Name: Jason Dillon
>>>>> Org: Apache Geronimo
>>>>>
>>>>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the  
>>>>> Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign  
>>>>> or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL  
>>>>> ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you  
>>>>> explain what this is about?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means.  But Clover grants  
>>>> licenses for open source projects.  I used the license they  
>>>> granted to me to be used to run the site builds.  This is shared  
>>>> configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the  
>>>> configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin.
>>>
>>> Sorry..
>>> I Am Not A Lawyer
>>> And Don't Want To Be
>>>
>>> I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't  
>>> think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that  
>>> this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that  
>>> we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you  
>>> convince me otherwise?
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message