incubator-empire-db-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henning Schmiedehausen <>
Subject Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Date Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:35:00 GMT
And especially, please remember that a vote on the empire-db-dev list or
even on empire-db-private is not enough to do any podling release. 

A podling release *must* be approved by the incubator PMC (see Before that,
it is not a release.


On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 07:48 +0000, Thomas Fischer wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Rainer Dbele wrote:
> > looks like we're running in circles with that struts2 extentions 
> > release. Partially it is probably my own fault since I did not question 
> > Thomas' findings but I must say I am not really fond of all these legal 
> > issues.
> Nobody is fond of that. But, if you want people to respect your own 
> license, you better respect other people's licenses.
> > Personally I would really like to bundle the servlet-api and jsp-api in 
> > order to have a nice clean and easy build process. I am also willing to 
> > change the release build scripts once again.
> I have no problem with including the tomcat libraries.
> > However I would like everyone to acknolege that the process of making a 
> > release build, uploading it, calling for vote on the dev-list, wainting 
> > or 72 hours, posting the result, calling for voting on the general list, 
> > ... is quite a tedious task and costs Jrg and me a lot of time.
> >
> > I would really appreciate if anyone who want's to check the release 
> > would do this, while we're voting on the empire-db-dev list and not 
> > leave it until we're on the general-incubator list. This would make life 
> > for us a lot easier.
> I would also rather like to check the release while the vote is on 
> empire-db-dev. But then the 72 hours is way too short. Remember that the 
> mentors are non-paid volunteers and are doing the review in their spare 
> time, and it also costs us a lot of time. If we do not have time in two 
> successive evenings, the vote is closed. I'd appreciate a 7 days voting 
> period.
> > We have run though this whole process three times now, and we still have 
> > no binding positive votes for the struts2-extentions yet. If there are 
> > any objections with what we currently offer as the release we should 
> > really discuss and resolve them before our next attempt.
> It does not build by default, and there is no documentation on how to 
> build it (at least I did not find it, and though I asked it [1] nobody 
> pointed it out, so I assume that it is not there). It does build if one 
> downloads the servlet and jsp api and puts them in the appropriate 
> directory with the appropriate name, but this needs to be documented.
> > Furthermore the question is how we will be able to get three binding 
> > votes at all on the general incubator list. Unfortuately there has 
> > recently been litte interest in this matter so all we can hope for is a 
> > positive vote of Henning, Thomas and Martijn. So my question goes 
> > especially to those three: How can procede in order to get a positive 
> > vote from you.
> We are three mentors, this should be enough to get three positive votes 
> if the issues are resolved. The 1.0.3 release candidate has still the 
> freemarker license problem, and the 1.0.4 release has no build 
> documentation, so both are problematic. I'd vote +1 on a 1.0.5 rc with 
> either the jsp api and servlet api from tomcat, or an appropriate build 
> documentation (which would be a good idea even if you'd include the jars)
> > Please take into accout, that the distribution currently avaialbe for 
> > downlaod from our project web-site and source-forge has nothing to do 
> > with apache at all. This will make it even harder to attract new users.
> The difference betweeen apache and sourceforge is that apache projects 
> have some kind of overwiew, and sourceforge hasn't. If you do not want the 
> overwiew, and think that it is too much hassle, there is always the 
> sourceforge alternative.
>     Thomas
> [1]

View raw message