please update your forrest pages. I have already done some modifications.
Please add your text where you think it is appropriate.
BTW, the text that I had in mind was:
"MyFaces 1.0 milestone 9 (aka MyFaces 1.0.9) is now available..."
WDYT?
-Manfred
On 4/15/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO we have reached an acceptable solution. Here is the text I was
planning to add to the website:
MyFaces 1.0.9(m9) is now available. The (m9) stands for
milestone 9. The license agreement covering JSF and all other JCP
based
specifications require that we use this terminology and
avoid the word "final." Once MyFaces passes the TCK we will be able
to
refer to our releases as final. This is one of the
reasons why we initially pulled the release announcement from the
website a
few days ago. But the release is official now and is
available through your nearest Apache mirror. Enjoy!
I think the users will understand that we stand behind the release but
that it still needs to comply with Sun's license before we can be
final. The filenames themsevles will not contain beta or milestone or
anything to that effect.
Craig, do you think this is acceptable?
sean
On 4/14/05, Craig McClanahan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That may have been the approach that JBoss took, but Apache's policy
> is to obey the requirements on Apache projects that implement JSRs.
>
> Craig
>
> On 4/14/05, Stan Silvert < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, please forgive me if I missed some important stuff from the beginning of the thread.
> >
> > My point was simply that Sun should not force us to use a "lesser" name. Unless I've missed it, I don't see that the license actually says anything like that anyway. From what I understand, and this is the way it was for J2EE, we are not allowed to call ourselves a JSF implementation until we pass TCK. That seems to be the meaning of paragraph 2 of the license. BTW, I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on the net.
> >
> > Of course I'm sure everyone wants us to pass TCK, Sun included. This is why I think we should contact someone with authority on this to make sure Sun won't get bent out of shape if we just call it MyFaces 1.0.9. Have we done that?
> >
> > Calling it beta or release candidate or whatever hurts the project as it implies that MyFaces is not ready for prime time.
> >
> > This just seems like common sense to me.
> >
> > Stan Silvert
> > JBoss, Inc.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thu 4/14/2005 6:18 PM
> > To: Stan Silvert
> > Cc: MyFaces Development; Sean Schofield
> > Subject: Re: Who belongs to the 'apsite' group on Minotaur?
> >
> > On 4/14/05, Stan Silvert < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > <rant>
> > > It seems to me that all this will be very confusing for users whether we
> > > call this "Beta" or "non-final". We might as well call it "horse poop",
> > > because nobody will want to use it in a real app.
> > >
> > > It IS MyFaces 1.0.9. It should only be called "Beta" if it is not ready
> > > for prime time.
> > >
> > > I know that before the JBoss Application Server passed the TCK we didn't
> > > go around calling our product "Beta".
> > > </rant>
> >
> > And that was the subject of considerable discussions :-).
> >
> > >
> > > Can we get a clarification from Sun as to what the requirements are?
> > > I'm sure they will be reasonable about it.
> >
> > See the spec license at the front of the JSF specification, available at:
> >
> > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=127
> >
> > In particular, the second paragraph under "NOTICE: LIMITED LICENSE GRANTS".
> >
> > Everyone has always wanted MyFaces to pass the TCK and be certified --
> > it's just time to get with the program.
> >
> > >
> > > Stan Silvert
> > > JBoss, Inc.
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > callto://stansilvert
> >
> > Craig McClanahan
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > (Was co-spec-lead for JSF 1.0)
> >
> >
> >
>
