Hi, Just a reminder - I introduced a depedency on jodatime, which I believe has a ASFv2 license.
And what about the dependency on Jimi, is that still there? And ok? Kevin via mobile On Sat, April 23, 2011 13:42, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi Dan! > > 0.2 is ok with me too. That depends what else is planed before a 1.0 > release. If there will be not many API changes between the current release > and the planed 1.0 status, then 0.9.something would just better reflect > this. But at the end of the day it's mostly about user expectations and > numbers are secundary. So let's stick with 0.2 > > I'll just like to get a release done finally because that's what users can > take and pick up from repository.apache.org and Apache maven central. > That's just better to promote than any temporary snapshot ;) > > The only javax.* dependency I found was the one for the servlet spec. I'll > fix that. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > --- On Sat, 4/23/11, Dan Haywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Dan Haywood <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: thinking about a release > To: [email protected] > Cc: "Robert Matthews" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 10:45 AM > > > > > > > Hi all, > > Yes, I have just been wanting to chip away at the documentation - as > the various commits will attest. > > > > Also, I can see both Rob and Kevin are steadily making improvements, > so there's ongoing work there, so didn't want to unnecessarily break > the flow. > > > > But I'm happy to put together a release if that's what people want. > What I propose is: > > 1. I'll just finish the core docs (should be done in next days or > two) > > 2. make sure that the copyright and other stuff is ok for the > remaining modules > > 3. update the JIRAs so capture the fact that documentation for some > of the other modules is not complete (most notably, we only have a > placeholder for the default runtime [oai.runtimes:dflt] module). > > 4. I'll check-in with Rob and Kevin to make sure that we choose a > suitable point to take the tag. > > > > Then I'll start looking into what makes up a release. > > > > In terms of Mark's questions: > > > > 1.) re-check the IP clearance. Especially our 3rd party > > dependencies. Even an incubator release must meet our > > license requirements. E.g. use specs from > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ > > instead of any javax.* or org.hibernate.* maven artifacts. > > > > We won't have dependencies on org.hibernate, but we might be depending > on some javax. stuff. They should all be in isis-parent pom.xml, so > perhaps someone could take a look? > > > > > > > > 2.) We better not need any 3rd party <repositories>. > > If we have such a thing, then we should look if there are > > any alternatives. That's no hard show stopper but generally > > a good idea to look at > > > > We do have a dependency in the restful view on JBoss, but that stuff > is all Apache license v2. > > > > > > > > 3.) Go through all open jira issues and identify show > > stopper issues. > > > > I don't think there are any, but I'll check. > > > > > > > > 4.) create a new isis-0.9.0 'Version' in Jira and move all > > bugs to 'fixed in isis-0.9.0' in Jira. > > > > I've been working on 0.1.2-SNAPSHOT, but I can rename to 0.9.0 if > you recommend it. I do actually have 0.2.0 and 0.3.0 releases > planned with some tickets assigned to them, but they can easily be > renamed too if required. > > > > > > Cheers > > Dan > > > > > > ~~~~~ > > On 22/04/2011 14:26, Kevin Meyer - KMZ wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I get the impression that most of (Dan's) hesistation has been about > the documentation.. we don't want to lose potential interest because of > this.. > > Having said that, what do the people who have joined more recently > have to say? Sabine, Michael, Vangjel, etc? > > Kevin > > > On 22 Apr 2011 at 9:56, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks! > > > I peaked over the sources a little bit (still don't have > much clue) and it doesn't look that bad imo. > > What about thinking off a new isis 0.9.0-incubating > release? > > We did this 0.9 version scheme in a few other projects > which are already close to 1.0 to show it's not _yet_ 1.0 > but already quite near. > > The fact that we have a incubator release out there is > pretty important for the adoption rate sometimes. > > WDYT? > > This of course will need a bit of preparation: > > > 1.) re-check the IP clearance. Especially our 3rd party > dependencies. Even an incubator release must meet our > license requirements. E.g. use specs from > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ > instead of any javax.* or org.hibernate.* maven artifacts if > possible. > > 2.) We better not need any 3rd party <repositories>. > If we have such a thing, then we should look if there are > any alternatives. That's no hard show stopper but generally > a good idea to look at > > 3.) Go through all open jira issues and identify show > stopper issues. > > 4.) create a new isis-0.9.0 'Version' in Jira and move all > bugs to 'fixed in isis-0.9.0' in Jira. > > Anything I forgot? > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > > > > > -- Kevin Meyer, Ph.D., Pr.Sci.Nat. http://www.kmz.co.za/ Sharon Park, Nigel, Gauteng, South Africa
