geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:19:51 GMT

Am I correct in assuming that all votes must be re-cast since the 
original vote was canceled?  If so, then it would probably be helpful to 
start a new thread to clarify that all votes in the previous (this) 
thread must be recast and to restate the question (the thread at this 
point no longer included the original vote question).

If you're not asking for a new vote and the original votes do still 
count then please excuse the noise of this note.

Just in case, here's my vote (again) ...
[+0] Um, I don't have an opinion


Joe


Jason Dillon wrote:
> 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