Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <A43C4B61-0711-4613-BACA-1853925E3818@planet57.com>
References: <1395807E-3A59-4E31-9B0C-7A704C090C5C@planet57.com>
 <74e15baa0608281257u7dbdda08k47b8c36956ffc3bf@mail.gmail.com>
 <E87ABA3C-E568-4425-91EE-A14BFD3C1F19@planet57.com>
 <8440C537-F9FA-4D81-89AB-955499AE39BB@gmail.com>
 <24918292-719B-4963-A814-5C565D6A6072@planet57.com>
 <24BA75F8-DB7F-44D1-9BDF-C300846EB839@gmail.com>
 <68A9B732-0784-477A-9031-D7FB37B122C4@planet57.com>
 <C9304DF9-5CEC-4822-962C-F3CEDFDD8DEB@gmail.com>
 <DB2D86B4-DFB9-4DAF-9F0B-3427AB078D91@planet57.com>
 <44F6350F.90009@toolazydogs.com>
 <A43C4B61-0711-4613-BACA-1853925E3818@planet57.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <4F19CC3A-F783-429C-A0EF-2219EFC6BA92@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bill Dudney <bdudney@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 06:16:25 -0600
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>