geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:44:12 GMT
+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