Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Young whippersnapper...I turn 40 on Saturday...now where is that walker of mine... Jacek Laskowski wrote: > On 9/20/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> though I turned 30 today so not sure how much work I will get done in >> my old age. > > Happy birthday, Jason! Isn't it nice to be on the other side of the > fence? ;-) (I'm on that side, too) > > Jacek >
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On 9/20/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: though I turned 30 today so not sure how much work I will get done in my old age. Happy birthday, Jason! Isn't it nice to be on the other side of the fence? ;-) (I'm on that side, too) Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Yup, I will re-tally soon. Been busy with gbuild, learning puppet, yam, yum, vmware, blah, blah... though I turned 30 today so not sure how much work I will get done in my old age. --jason On Sep 19, 2006, at 4:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Time to call this vote, I think. Alan or Jason? --kevan On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: +1 Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again. Regards, ALan On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/ geronimo/genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Time to call this vote, I think. Alan or Jason? --kevan On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: +1 Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again. Regards, ALan On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/ geronimo/genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/ proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 Gianny On 14/09/2006, at 3:16 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: +1 --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 david jencks On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/ geronimo/genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Am I correct in assuming that all votes must be re-cast since the original vote was canceled? If so, then it would probably be helpful to start a new thread to clarify that all votes in the previous (this) thread must be recast and to restate the question (the thread at this point no longer included the original vote question). If you're not asking for a new vote and the original votes do still count then please excuse the noise of this note. Just in case, here's my vote (again) ... [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion Joe Jason Dillon wrote: I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/geronimo/ genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
[+0] Um, I don't have an opinion Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 --jason On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: +1 Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again. Regards, ALan On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/ geronimo/genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/ proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 Thanks Jason for getting this rolling again. Regards, ALan On Sep 12, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/ geronimo/genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
I had thought Alan was going to resume the 1.0 vote with the artifacts thats I published to: http://people.apache.org/~jdillon/repository/org/apache/geronimo/ genesis/ This is a re-release of 1.0, with the clover license removed, but not the artifact (its empty now). --jason On Sep 7, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Bill Dudney wrote: Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0-oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Hi Jason, Did this ever get done? I'm +1 on releasing something (1.1, 1.0.1 1.0- oops whatever) since we are forced to build it after a complete bootstrap. TTFN, -bd- On Aug 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Well... it was actually released... and then pulled back... which is my fault. But, I don't see any reason why 1.0 needs to be re-released. I've already updated the tree to use 1.1-SNAPSHOT and have been making changes to it to fix the noted problems as well as a few other enhancements... IMO it is much more confusing to look at the SVN logs and see that 1.0 was made from a 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I think that the unfortunate practice of making a release then voting on it and then possibly re-cutting the same release is very poor. I'd much rather consider 1.0 dead and release 1.1 so that there is no confusion as to which is which. In almost every other software project I have worked on, a release is cut, if there are changes, then a new revision is made and then a new release is cut for the changes. If you wanted to keep the 1.0 bits in there then 1.0-1 and then 1.0-2 is common practice for minor fix iterations. While I can understand since the time to run the tck for the Geronimo server on the release binaries and then after that has run we vote... that the server release is a bit different. I don't think this needs to be or should be the case for other projects. I believe it is much, much better to test the latest SNAPSHOT, then vote to make the release and then make the release. Anyways, I don't think that the version matters very much here. This is an internal project used to support internal builds. I don't expect anyone outside of Geronimo to even care. So, I still recommend that 1.0 is dead and next to be released w/proper oversight and vote is 1.1. --jason On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
I'm confused, how do we vote for 1.1 if 1.0 was never released? We need to keep the version number the same. Regards, Alan Jason Dillon wrote: Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Okay, I'm canceling this vote. I've removed the clover bits from Genesis, and added headers to scripts... will start a new vote for 1.1 soonish. Thanks for all of your input. Sorry I jumped the gun and created the release before the vote. --jason On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? I will just disable clover... I don't have the energy or care enough to do anything else. --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. Sorry.. I Am Not A Lawyer And Don't Want To Be I don't think we can put this license in on ibiblio. I also don't think it should be public in our source tree... I understand that this may make things more difficult, but it sure seems to me that we're violating the terms of the license agreement... Can you convince me otherwise? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and NOTICE file? I don't see why we need to add anything to our LiCENSE.txt or NOTICE.txt for this... we do not distribute Groovy... we just import +use 2 classes. OK. I agree. This is consistent with the LICENSE/NOTICE files being placed in Geronimo server jar files. We asked about this very topic on legal-discuss, I haven't seen a response... --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:57 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: FYI, the reason why I said the tag has been made... is that the maven release plugin handled that... and now that since trunk is 1.1-SNAPSHOT, using the release plugin again would result in a 1.1 release, not a re-tag of 1.0... which I am find to do if that is what we want. IMO, this is not a typical release that needs to be installed and tested as does the server... and I would like to continue using the release plugin to facilitate this. I think it is fine to release to m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository, vote on that release and then publish... since the sync to central is a manual process anyways. OK. Thanks for the explanation. I thought the sync from m2-ibiblio- rsync-repository to ibiblio was an automatic process... --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
The other way it to publish a binary on private site, and once approved,deploy the real ones to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository using mvn deploy from the svn tag.However, I' m not sure it would work with m2 release plugin, as you need to hack the pom to be able to deploy to another site and the plugin willcheck that you don't have any local modifications prior to makingthe release.On 8/29/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI, the reason why I said the tag has been made... is that the mavenrelease plugin handled that... and now that since trunk is 1.1-SNAPSHOT, using the release plugin again would result in a 1.1release, not a re-tag of 1.0... which I am find to do if that is whatwe want.IMO, this is not a typical release that needs to be installed andtested as does the server... and I would like to continue using therelease plugin to facilitate this. I think it is fine to release to m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository, vote on that release and then publish...since the sync to central is a manual process anyways.--jasonOn Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:> > On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:>>> I did so to facilitate the release for xbean... I don't think that tagging before a vote is going to be the norm,>> but I had committed to getting it done by today. >> I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm> being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community> when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing > that responsibility.>> For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license> for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit> of an unknown to me...> > from> Product: Clover> License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x> Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT> Expiry: Never> Maintenance Expiry: Never> Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 > Name: Jason Dillon> Org: Apache Geronimo>> Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the> Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or> otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, > however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this> is about?>> How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and> NOTICE file?>> bootstrap and bootstrap.bat should contain an APACHE LICENSE...>> --kevan>>> On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: >>> The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it.>> So? The fact that you tagged a 1.0 (without, as far as I know, >>> consulting the community), should not bear any weight in this>>> discussion.>> --kevan>> -- Cheers,Guillaume Nodet
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
FYI, the reason why I said the tag has been made... is that the maven release plugin handled that... and now that since trunk is 1.1- SNAPSHOT, using the release plugin again would result in a 1.1 release, not a re-tag of 1.0... which I am find to do if that is what we want. IMO, this is not a typical release that needs to be installed and tested as does the server... and I would like to continue using the release plugin to facilitate this. I think it is fine to release to m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository, vote on that release and then publish... since the sync to central is a manual process anyways. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I did so to facilitate the release for xbean... I don't think that tagging before a vote is going to be the norm, but I had committed to getting it done by today. I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and NOTICE file? bootstrap and bootstrap.bat should contain an APACHE LICENSE... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it. So? The fact that you tagged a 1.0 (without, as far as I know, consulting the community), should not bear any weight in this discussion. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Docs have been updated. NOTE: Some modules do not have docs, as due to the way m2 site works, children would pick up those bits too... which would be bad. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: The documentation I found at http://geronimo.apache.org/maven/genesis/ is pretty limited -- it would be nice to have more information to go with the 1.0 release. Other than that I don't have an opinion because I don't really know what it does. :) Thanks, Aaron On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and NOTICE file? I don't see why we need to add anything to our LiCENSE.txt or NOTICE.txt for this... we do not distribute Groovy... we just import +use 2 classes. --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. Mmmkay. I'm taking deep breaths... :-] For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? I have no idea what "IANAL ADNWTB" means. But Clover grants licenses for open source projects. I used the license they granted to me to be used to run the site builds. This is shared configuration, which was checked into genesis to simplify the configuration of modules which need it to run the plugin. How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and NOTICE file? http://svn.codehaus.org/groovy/trunk/groovy/groovy-core/LICENSE.txt Dunno what should be put into the NOTICE.txt... if you know I can add it. bootstrap and bootstrap.bat should contain an APACHE LICENSE... Ooookay. --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Then we need our own repository... These artifacts are not intended for any use outside of Geronimo. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I did so to facilitate the release for xbean... I don't think that tagging before a vote is going to be the norm, but I had committed to getting it done by today. I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and NOTICE file? bootstrap and bootstrap.bat should contain an APACHE LICENSE... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it. So? The fact that you tagged a 1.0 (without, as far as I know, consulting the community), should not bear any weight in this discussion. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I did so to facilitate the release for xbean... I don't think that tagging before a vote is going to be the norm, but I had committed to getting it done by today. I appreciate that, I applaud your efforts, and apologize if I'm being a PITA. However, we also have a responsibility as a community when releasing software. I'm trying to be sure we are addressing that responsibility. For instance, I see that genesis-1.0 includes a software license for Clover? News to me, but I confess that genesis has been a bit of an unknown to me... from Product: Clover License: Open Source License, 0.x, 1.x Issued: Sun May 14 2006 21:59:13 CDT Expiry: Never Maintenance Expiry: Never Key: 965016739f4031c43d67e61b0 Name: Jason Dillon Org: Apache Geronimo Clause 5 of the Clover license says "The Licensee may copy the Software for back-up purposes only. The Licensee may not assign or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party." IANAL ADNWTB, however, this gives me cause for concern. Can you explain what this is about? How is Groovy licensed? Do we need to include it in LICENSE and NOTICE file? bootstrap and bootstrap.bat should contain an APACHE LICENSE... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it. So? The fact that you tagged a 1.0 (without, as far as I know, consulting the community), should not bear any weight in this discussion. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
bootstrap. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: What error do you see while building tags/genesis-1.0? Downloading: http://repository.codehaus.org/org/apache/geronimo/ genesis/config/clover-config/1.0/clover-config-1.0.jar [WARNING] Unable to get resource from repository codehaus (http:// repository.codehaus.org) Downloading: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/ genesis/config/clover-config/1.0/clover-config-1.0.jar [WARNING] Unable to get resource from repository central (http:// repo1.maven.org/maven2) [INFO] -- -- [ERROR] BUILD ERROR [INFO] -- -- [INFO] Failed to resolve artifact. Missing: -- 1) org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:clover-config:jar:1.0 Try downloading the file manually from the project website. Then, install it using the command: mvn install:install-file - DgroupId=org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config -DartifactId=clover- config \ -Dversion=1.0 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file Path to dependency: 1) org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:project-config:pom:1.0 2) org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:clover-config:jar:1.0 -- 1 required artifact is missing. for artifact: org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:project-config:pom:1.0 from the specified remote repositories: central (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2), apache.snapshots (http://people.apache.org/maven-snapshot- repository), codehaus (http://repository.codehaus.org), apache-snapshots (http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot- repository), codehaus-snapshots (http://snapshots.repository.codehaus.org) --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: Well, I was looking for a binary to review. Your note referenced the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. I assumed you were going to put 1.0 there, *when* the Geronimo community had approved the release, not before. Perhaps I misunderstand when artifacts are to be placed into the m2-ibiblio-rsync- repository? There's currently a vote on XBean, Itt's not in m2- ibiblio-rsync-repository, and the vote explicitly states it will be moved there, when the release is approved... I also now understand that you've created a geronimo/genesis/tags/ genesis-1.0. I'm not able to build tags/genesis-1.0, but can build genesis/trunk. From what I've looked at for the trunk build, I'd probably be able to vote for the release (once the above is resolved). I'll keep looking around... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Um... not sure what you mean... these are maven2 artifacts, so... um yes there is a download. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Is there a download available? --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: What error do you see while building tags/genesis-1.0? Downloading: http://repository.codehaus.org/org/apache/geronimo/ genesis/config/clover-config/1.0/clover-config-1.0.jar [WARNING] Unable to get resource from repository codehaus (http:// repository.codehaus.org) Downloading: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/ genesis/config/clover-config/1.0/clover-config-1.0.jar [WARNING] Unable to get resource from repository central (http:// repo1.maven.org/maven2) [INFO] [ERROR] BUILD ERROR [INFO] [INFO] Failed to resolve artifact. Missing: -- 1) org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:clover-config:jar:1.0 Try downloading the file manually from the project website. Then, install it using the command: mvn install:install-file - DgroupId=org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config -DartifactId=clover-config \ -Dversion=1.0 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file Path to dependency: 1) org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:project-config:pom:1.0 2) org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:clover-config:jar:1.0 -- 1 required artifact is missing. for artifact: org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config:project-config:pom:1.0 from the specified remote repositories: central (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2), apache.snapshots (http://people.apache.org/maven-snapshot- repository), codehaus (http://repository.codehaus.org), apache-snapshots (http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot- repository), codehaus-snapshots (http://snapshots.repository.codehaus.org) --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: Well, I was looking for a binary to review. Your note referenced the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. I assumed you were going to put 1.0 there, *when* the Geronimo community had approved the release, not before. Perhaps I misunderstand when artifacts are to be placed into the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository? There's currently a vote on XBean, Itt's not in m2-ibiblio-rsync- repository, and the vote explicitly states it will be moved there, when the release is approved... I also now understand that you've created a geronimo/genesis/tags/ genesis-1.0. I'm not able to build tags/genesis-1.0, but can build genesis/trunk. From what I've looked at for the trunk build, I'd probably be able to vote for the release (once the above is resolved). I'll keep looking around... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Um... not sure what you mean... these are maven2 artifacts, so... um yes there is a download. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Is there a download available? --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
What error do you see while building tags/genesis-1.0? --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: Well, I was looking for a binary to review. Your note referenced the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. I assumed you were going to put 1.0 there, *when* the Geronimo community had approved the release, not before. Perhaps I misunderstand when artifacts are to be placed into the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository? There's currently a vote on XBean, Itt's not in m2-ibiblio-rsync- repository, and the vote explicitly states it will be moved there, when the release is approved... I also now understand that you've created a geronimo/genesis/tags/ genesis-1.0. I'm not able to build tags/genesis-1.0, but can build genesis/trunk. From what I've looked at for the trunk build, I'd probably be able to vote for the release (once the above is resolved). I'll keep looking around... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Um... not sure what you mean... these are maven2 artifacts, so... um yes there is a download. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Is there a download available? --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Well, I was looking for a binary to review. Your note referenced the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. I assumed you were going to put 1.0 there, *when* the Geronimo community had approved the release, not before. Perhaps I misunderstand when artifacts are to be placed into the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository? There's currently a vote on XBean, Itt's not in m2-ibiblio-rsync- repository, and the vote explicitly states it will be moved there, when the release is approved... I also now understand that you've created a geronimo/genesis/tags/ genesis-1.0. I'm not able to build tags/genesis-1.0, but can build genesis/trunk. From what I've looked at for the trunk build, I'd probably be able to vote for the release (once the above is resolved). I'll keep looking around... --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Um... not sure what you mean... these are maven2 artifacts, so... um yes there is a download. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Is there a download available? --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
I did so to facilitate the release for xbean... I don't think that tagging before a vote is going to be the norm, but I had committed to getting it done by today. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it. So? The fact that you tagged a 1.0 (without, as far as I know, consulting the community), should not bear any weight in this discussion. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it. So? The fact that you tagged a 1.0 (without, as far as I know, consulting the community), should not bear any weight in this discussion. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 Gianny On 28/08/2006, at 3:42 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+0 I looked at the doc and src but still don't understand much about Genesis (my own fault for not paying close attention when it was discussed on the dev list). Paul On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
The tag for 1.0 is made, and unless there is something major I'm not going to modify it. This site is only really there to document the plugins, which have full Javadoc, usage and configuration... basically all the same docs that most Maven plugins have. I can add some more apt docs to the other config modules... I'll see what I can do. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: The documentation I found at http://geronimo.apache.org/maven/genesis/ is pretty limited -- it would be nice to have more information to go with the 1.0 release. Other than that I don't have an opinion because I don't really know what it does. :) Thanks, Aaron On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Um... not sure what you mean... these are maven2 artifacts, so... um yes there is a download. --jason On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: Is there a download available? --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
[+0] Um, I don't have an opinion Joe Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 david jencks On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
The documentation I found at http://geronimo.apache.org/maven/genesis/ is pretty limited -- it would be nice to have more information to go with the 1.0 release. Other than that I don't have an opinion because I don't really know what it does. :) Thanks, Aaron On 8/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On 8/27/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0
to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository.
In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild,
gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published
to central.
[+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
[+0] Um, I don't have an opinion
[-1] Heck no... and this is why...
+1
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61Ehttp://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
[+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central Cheers Prasad On 8/28/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: > [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central -David
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
On Aug 27, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central -David
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
[+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central Jason Dillon wrote: > This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to > the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. > > In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, > javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. > > [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central > [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion > [-1] Heck no... and this is why... > > --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
Is there a download available? --kevan On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1On 8/28/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [X] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 centralJacek--Jacek Laskowskihttp://www.laskowski.net.pl-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
[X] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [VOTE] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
+1 --jason On 8/27/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This weekend I cleaned up Genesis and made an initial release of 1.0 to the m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository. In order to release other projects, like specs, xbean, gbuild, gshell, javamail and server... we need to have genesis 1.0 published to central. [+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central [+0] Um, I don't have an opinion [-1] Heck no... and this is why... --jason
