geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:14:53 GMT
Time to call this vote, I think. Alan or Jason?
--kevan
On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> +1
>
> Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again.
>
>
> Regards,
> ALan
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, 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