shiro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Les Hazlewood <>
Subject Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Date Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:42:01 GMT
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


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 <> wrote:
>>> 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 the
>>>>> 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 (his
>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>> 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