Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jason.dillon@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.142.191 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=gAYf91WjK0CXesHv12b3K3W6d3kam0Qcf0nZrlV1hhYiTZN6DexwsE6kBPf9TdMbMc
         4j04lgfUffgsqSyNkvSnxmekG3ZOJ408syCU1jsnXMxq4wFFzk5t4i7FPYdHAYiYayyB
         PHLVMNviITzL/iINePJnz6w+WP6PbZm9sE6b4=
Sender: Jason Dillon <jason.dillon@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <71B27F30-28DF-4A89-B836-3B8EB4607403@planet57.com>
From: Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <7B7FA071-C921-4D09-A1AC-FE8864271A0B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release gshell 1.0-alpha2
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:40:42 +0700
References: <499ADC1E.6030209@earthlink.net>
 <E64B3956-1A14-43FA-809A-491738D96679@planet57.com>
 <7B7FA071-C921-4D09-A1AC-FE8864271A0B@gmail.com>

On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> None of those files are included in a release.
>
> They're part of the source release, whether or not they're in the  
> binary distribution is irrelevant...
> The binary files (build, extract, etc) are pretty trivial. So, I  
> wouldn't require a re-release for those... They look like somebody's  
> private build tools. I doubt they should really be in svn. Some of  
> them don't look like they'd work (i.e. rebuild is calling  
> 'nukeTargets').

Sure, they could be removed, they are the scripts I run, I got tired  
of having to recreate them when my laptop drive kept crashing.


> NOTES.txt looks like a todo list. Prolly should be removed, but I  
> wouldn't hold up a release for that either.

Um, why would I want to remove a todo list?

What about README.txt should that also be removed?


> The above files should be cleaned up on trunk...

Why?


> Assume GShell.mdxml is generated by a tool, and therefore wouldn't  
> require a license header. Are you using this as a development aid?

This is the MagicDraw UML models for the project.

  * * *

IMO, the source distribution already contains a top-level LICENSE.txt  
and NOTICE.txt and that should be good enough to cover any of the  
files which are in question.

--jason