On 4/14/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this mean that we can't put a 1.0.9 release up on www.apache.org? > Does the filename need to have the word "beta" in it? If so, does > that mean it can't be released on www.apache.org? > > The release is done. Calling it beta only confuses our users so IMO > we should avoid that if possible (and still comply with JCP rules.) > Can we just put a disclaimer inside the jar file and on the website? > Would that solve the problem for now? (Long term solution is TCK but > that seems a ways off even with Craig greasing the skids.) >
The release includes "javax.faces.*" classes and implementations. That puts it under the license requirements for these classes. > Nothing in the jarfile claims to implement the spec. Its implied but > not stated. Is that enough for now? > No. > We need some suggestions on how to proceed here. Our users are > expecting a 1.0.9 release and we already started to give it to them > and then took it back (our mistake.) Where do we go from here? > Label it as a non-final release, and make sure the world understands this. > sean Craig > > On 4/14/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/13/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > However, now another interesting issue comes up. My understanding is that > > > only official ASF releases are supposed to go into the dist directories, > > > and only official ASF releases are supposed to be mirrored, unless an > > > exceptional download volume is anticipated. This begs the question of > > > whether MyFaces 1.0.9 is permitted to become an official ASF release, > > > given that it has not passed the TCK. > > > > > > > It is correct that you can't produce a final release claiming to > > implement a JCP based spec (including JavaServer Faces) without having > > passed the TCK. You an do an early access or beta -- the big problem > > in this case (as you point out) was the confusing messaging -- to say > > nothing of the fact that the TSS announcement said only "1.0.9" and > > didn't say "beta". > > > > > I'm afraid I don't think I can help you resolve that one, although I feel > > > it's important to raise. It might be worthwhile for you folks to have a > > > conversation with some of the other folks who have to deal with TCK > > > issues. The Geronimo folks come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. > > > > > > > The appropriate Apache-side butts have been kicked into gear (by me > > :-), and I'll help grease any skids needed on the Sun side as well. > > It is indeed well past time where we should have done this. > > > > > -- > > > Martin Cooper > > > > > > > Craig > > >
