Hi Jason,
Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-
oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete
bootstrap.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which
is my fault.
But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've
already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making
changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other
enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN
logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then
voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very
poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that
there is no confusion as to which is which.
In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release
is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then
a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the
1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for
minor fix iterations.
While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the
Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run
we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't
think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I
believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then
vote to make the release and then make the release.
Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here.
This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I
don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still
recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper
oversight and vote is 1.1.
--jason
On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released?
We need to keep the version number the same.
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from
Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote
for 1.1 soonish.
Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created
the release before the vote.
--jason
On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if
I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a
community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we
are addressing that responsibility.
Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-]
For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software
license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has
been a bit of an unknown to me...
from
Product: Clover
License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x
Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT
Expiry: Never
Maintenance Expiry: Never
Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0
Name: Jason Dillon
Org: Apache Geronimo
Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the
Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not
assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party."
IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can
you explain what this is about?
I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants
licenses for open source projects. I used the license they
granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is
shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to
simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the
plugin.
Sorry..
I Am Not A Lawyer
And Don't Want To Be
I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also
don't think it should be public in our source tree... I
understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure
seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license
agreement... Can you convince me otherwise?
--kevan
