shiro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kalle Korhonen <>
Subject Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Date Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:46:11 GMT
You got it. Wiki's probably the lowest overhead, given that it'll end
up in wiki as well. I don't think there's an SVN requirement.


On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <> wrote:
> Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
> the way :)  I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow.  How
> do we want to go through edit iterations?  SVN? Wiki?  Mailing List
> only?
> Les
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <> wrote:
>> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
>> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
>> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
>> requirement but recommended).
>> Kalle
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <>
>>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>> The page at gives
>>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>> Kalle
>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <>
>>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on
>>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>>> existing notice file.  As long as the URL for his website remains
>>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new
>>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring
>>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that
>>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*.  We're definitely
>>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>> Kalle

View raw message