incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas Evans <nick.ev...@inology.nl>
Subject Re: Ready for a new ODF Toolkit release?
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:29:42 GMT
A question about the release process:

It seems that the last release (0.6-incubating) is not available on Maven
Central.  This is preventing my team from using the latest version of the
toolkit.  Will the new release be made available through maven central?

Best,
Nick


2014-01-29 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>:

> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Florian Hopf <fhopf@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 17.01.2014 17:50, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> With a little push we could have a release before Fosdem.  That would
> >> be good to mention there, if we had a new release.
> >
> >
> > That's an ambitioned target but we could at least try ;)
> >
>
> Yes, that was ambitious ;-)
>
> >
> >> I'll volunteer to be the Release Manager for this release.  I don't
> >> have anything I need to urgently get into the release.  I'll update
> >> the copyright date, for example, to 2014.  But I have no additional
> >> code planned for this release.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for stepping in as a release manager. I hope I have written down
> > everything correctly in the release guide at
> > http://incubator.apache.org/odftoolkit/odftoolkit-release-guide.html
> >
>
> I read that over.  The SVN automation part is a little scary.
> Hopefully I'm not the first person to try that part of the release
> script.
>
> > I think we need to take extra care to get the Maven repository release
> right
> > this time. The project should now be set up correctly to do most of it
> > automatically.
> >
> > I'll try to help you with the release as good as I can.
> >
> >
> >> If anyone else has something that they'd like to get into this
> >> release, please speak up, so we can give time to integrate and test
> >> before the release.
> >>
> >
> > Is there still an unresolved issue with the licensing of the new
> dependency
> > or has this been solved outside the list? This is the thread I am
> referring
> > to: http://markmail.org/thread/ej4sv5c22l7rco7z
> >
>
> I brought this up on legal-discuss mailing list.  The underlying
> license on that library was the BSD 3-clause license.  I was able to
> confirm that this was category-A.  So we can use it as a dependency.
>  I think Svante was in contact with the author who was willing to make
> the license more explicit in the component.   A LICENSE file in the
> root of the JAR would be good, for example.
>
> > Regards
> > Florian
> >
> > --
> > Florian Hopf
> > Freelance Software Developer
> >
> > http://blog.florian-hopf.de
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message