On Jan 11, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Paul Fremantle is listed as one of our mentors on the JSecurity
Proposal. He just didn't vote.
Ahh, ok. Then it's more accurate to also state that one mentor did
not vote.
I didn't mention the multiple build systems because I was unsure if
that issue came to consensus or not. I stated that I didn't mind if
both were in place, but then someone raised the issue as to what would
be the 'formal' one that would be used for releases, and how we would
maintain both, and I don't think that was ever answered or resolved
among the team members. I just wasn't clear enough as to what to
became of that discussion :/
The builds are not that complicated. Any one would do. For
publication to the Maven repository I imagine we would use the maven
build system.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
<[email protected]> wrote:
"3 of the 5 project mentors ..." should read "Three of four project
mentors
..."
You neglected to mention that we would have both ant and maven
build systems
in place.
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
I just updated the report - please lemme know if that is OK.
Thanks again,
Les
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]
>
wrote:
Hi Emmanuel,
Thanks very much for the feedback - I appreciate it a lot. I'll
adjust accordingly and re-notify so we can review again.
1) About the name, I would suggest we just keep the matter
open, as
more
IPMC members are stepping in. Right now, the vote is closed and
the
result
is not positive, but (1) I don't think it was a good idea to
vote such
an
item [1] and (2) I'm not sure I won't cast my vote in another
direction
if
Juniper is not considered as a risk or if Juniper legals just
let us
using
JSecurity.
Gotcha. I'll revise that section to say it is still open at the
moment.
2) You have to mention that Alex Karasulu has stepped down as a
mentor.
Ah yes, thanks. I'll add that as well.
Otherwise, it's a pretty good report. We have one more day for
other
comments.
[1] The reason I think it was not a good idea to vote is that if
we are
not
trying to solve an issue, but to determinate if there is an IP
issue. No
matter if you get all the -1 needed to keep JSecurity name, you
may
still be
forced to change the name if The ASF get sued and lose.
Sounds good. It is very helpful to learn when would be a good
time to
vote vs when to let discussion continue. This was a great learning
experience for me, and is one of the great things the Incubator
affords us. Thanks :)
Best,
Les
