Pretty sure that SNAPSHOTs have been ruled as equivalent to nightly builds so we're probably ok.
What jars are in the repo? We should not have binaries in the repos. -Alex On 7/31/14 5:42 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote: >Geee ... I already thought I might have mis-expressed myself. > >I didn't setup the build to "release" anything in a software release >manner. I have setup the job to publish SNAPSHOT versions of BlazeDS (I >did manage to deploy a first set of snapshots manually, but now it's >happening automatically). > >This ist he usual way software is developed using maven. Noone would use >SNAPSHOT versions in public (Acutally you can't even release anything >that relys on SNAPSHOT verisons). This is the way a work in progress is >shipped to early adopters and I think it's a very good approach. And it's >an approach allmost all other Apache projects go. > >If we took this even further and we published snapshot versions for all >Flex sub-projects. People could start working with 4.14 while it is being >developed and report back problems way before we have released a new >version, just by changing 1.13.0 to 1.14-SNAPSHOT. > >Chris > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:[email protected]] >Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 13:10 >An: [email protected] >Betreff: Re: Missing BlazeDS repo on the sources page > >Hi, > >> It seems to be a work in progress, not a release. >Agreed - that's why we shouldn't be making publicly available in the >Apache repo. > >> You raise valid points that certainly need to be addressed before a >> release is cut. But for now, we should be glad somebody is doing >> actual work that helps us get closer to a version that is NOT Adobe; >> we should help, rather than obstruct, his efforts. >With my PMC hat on. Legal issues are important. it looks like we may be >publishing 3rd party jars and all sort of other things that could get up >into trouble, like for instance not having a LICENSE file. Please let >hold off publishing it for now until we can give it a good looking over. > >There's no need to publicly publish this to work out and fix what those >issues are, none of the issues I raised are a hinderance or obstruction >to currently development. > >> Maybe you can have a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE files that would >> be required, as that has become something of a specialty of yours? >Currently I don't have the spare time, but other people are welcome to do >so. In fact I'd prefer if someone else does it so they can gain >experience at this task. I'm happy to help out and review when I can. > >Thanks, >Justin
