There are clearly several threads on the go discussing this point.
Just wanted to point out that we are working closely with the MINA team and afaik there is no disagreement about the changes made. Martin/Robert both know more of the detail, but I think it's important to note that we are working together with the MINA project - just not on the same timelines. We contributed all of the code for M1, so I do think it's fair that we have a significant influence over it's fate. I asked for this release publically (been on the wiki pages for a while before that too) and no-one objected to the early Nov date (originally October!). A salient point in all of these discussions - what's the current status of the issues with the Maven build ? Is it ready to go - if not, what is outstanding ? Marnie On 11/16/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:26 AM, John O'Hara wrote: > On 15/11/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Yes, it can be long. But those are the rules by which we must abide >> under Apache. As Rajith points out in a separate email, it's not even >> clear that M1 as it stands can get out the door given its dependency >> on an unreleased version of mina. >> >> I don't make the rules. I just want to live by them, as I'm sure we >> all do, and I know that maven will help greatly in that regard. > > > With Apache licensed software, we can use any checked in code that > bears the > license. Chapter and verse, please. We've had a number of people over the past few days assert what the "real" rules are, and now you've just added another. These assertions have greatly differed. If I were the M1 release manager, I would want to see an official Apache document that clearly states what's possible in this regard. I am surprised that our mentors haven't chimed in yet. --steve
