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 20:35:57 GMT
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).


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