geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Dudney <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:16:25 GMT
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  


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

View raw message