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 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:44:02 GMT
I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the  
artifacts thats I published to:

     http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/geronimo/ 
genesis/

This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not  
the artifact (its empty now).

--jason


On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1  
> 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete  
> bootstrap.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> 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