Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem? probably IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license) Prior to running off and rewriting the wheel, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask upstream if they'd care to relicense the DTD under something very clear (BSD, for instance). Sometimes this works, and sometimes these sorts of negotiations are aided by having an apache.org address. It's usually worth a try. mentors really need to cast their votes +1 -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:40 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/7/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem? probably IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license) ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository. do you intend to ban distribution by maven? I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz. For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just changing the ant scripts. yes - every apache jar that is released by itself would need NOTICE and LICENSE files Thanks for the feedback. The OFBiz build files now all copy the NOTICE and LICENSE files into the META-INF directory for each jar. So, from now on all OFBiz jar files will include the NOTICE and LICENSE files to make their (re)distribution more flexible. On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for this Test Snapshot release? possibly AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that this issue is resolved before graduation. In the case of all of these DTD/XSD files they are not frequently used in OFBiz and after a bit of research I was able to get all existing XML files pointing to files available over the internet instead of from/though OFBiz. I don't think this will become much of an issue in terms of inconvenience or making things inflexible, and in a way it is nice to have one less thing to keep track of in the resources we manage and host. So yes, these files are now removed from SVN and there are README files in place to describe where the files can be obtained, and the XML files that use them point to the public locations. I've notice that no one else has really voted on it yet. that's not unusual. unfortunately, checking releases takes IPMC energy which is in limited supply. i run RAT (which is quicker) but there's still quite a deal of time talen by offering explanations. From my own experience I totally understand and there is certainly no hurry on this. We'd all like to see this finished up of course and will be happy to do whatever we can to smooth out the process. I know that OFBiz is fairly large will require a good bit of time from anyone who reviews it. I think this wraps up these new issues that Robert identified so that once this or another Test Snapshot is approved we won't have these delaying the OFBiz graduation. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/7/06, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. So would you recommend OFBiz copy the XSD and relicense it to ASL 2.0? definitely not: this is very wrong. in particular: * there is no right to modify so adding a license header would be a copyright violation * existing copyright and license headers must be retained a clean room implementation would mean starting from the specification without reference t o the DTD ideally by people who had no knowledge of the DTD but see comments by david and david later in this thread. i'm happy that this is know resolved and hope that OfBiz may contact the consortium and ask about offering under a different license in future. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Hi Robert, robert burrell donkin wrote: ... but see comments by david and david later in this thread. i'm happy that this is know resolved and hope that OfBiz may contact the consortium and ask about offering under a different license in future. Yes, this is something we will probably try to do in the future, even if it's not one of the top level priorities right now since the OFBiz's components that are using these files are by default not enabled (and they require some setup before they can really be used) and so using publicly available urls is fine for now. Our top priority right now is to clear all the license issues, answer your questions, address your remarks so that we can graduate. Again, thanks for your valuable feedback and comments. Jacopo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/7/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator group and the Incubator PMC. +0 ATM (i have a couple of questions) i'm now (reluctantly) +1 (see comments below) snip http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd may not be under an open source compatible license (note that modification is not explicitly allowed but all rights are not restricted). standard DTDs are a difficult subject: many licenses used are not open source compatible. may need to ask on legal. i think that a clean room implementation of the DTD from the specification under the apache license (if that is possible) may be easier and quicker than untangling the legal issues. same goes for http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ shark/dtd/TC-1025_schema_10_xpdl.xsd would this be possible? I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem? probably IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license) ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository. do you intend to ban distribution by maven? I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz. For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just changing the ant scripts. yes - every apache jar that is released by itself would need NOTICE and LICENSE files On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for this Test Snapshot release? possibly AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that this issue is resolved before graduation. I've notice that no one else has really voted on it yet. that's not unusual. unfortunately, checking releases takes IPMC energy which is in limited supply. i run RAT (which is quicker) but there's still quite a deal of time talen by offering explanations. mentors really need to cast their votes - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Hi, On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator group and the Incubator PMC. +1 from me. AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. So would you recommend OFBiz copy the XSD and relicense it to ASL 2.0? since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that this issue is resolved before graduation. It's on my (very) short list of remaining OFBiz issues to handle before calling a graduation vote. mentors really need to cast their votes - robert Mine was cast on [EMAIL PROTECTED], casting here again for clarity and ease of IPMC viewing. Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator group and the Incubator PMC. +0 ATM (i have a couple of questions) important notes -- (please read but IMHO action is not required for this release) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/ pos/dtd/jcl.dtd is CPL'd. note that under this draft http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html distribution would not be allowed. this is draft policy ATM. may need to either create a clean room implementation or raise issue on legal-discuss. queries - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd may not be under an open source compatible license (note that modification is not explicitly allowed but all rights are not restricted). standard DTDs are a difficult subject: many licenses used are not open source compatible. may need to ask on legal. i think that a clean room implementation of the DTD from the specification under the apache license (if that is possible) may be easier and quicker than untangling the legal issues. same goes for http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ shark/dtd/TC-1025_schema_10_xpdl.xsd would this be possible? I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem? ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository. do you intend to ban distribution by maven? I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz. For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just changing the ant scripts. On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for this Test Snapshot release? I've notice that no one else has really voted on it yet. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator group and the Incubator PMC. +0 ATM (i have a couple of questions) important notes -- (please read but IMHO action is not required for this release) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/pos/dtd/jcl.dtd is CPL'd. note that under this draft http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html distribution would not be allowed. this is draft policy ATM. may need to either create a clean room implementation or raise issue on legal-discuss. queries - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd may not be under an open source compatible license (note that modification is not explicitly allowed but all rights are not restricted). standard DTDs are a difficult subject: many licenses used are not open source compatible. may need to ask on legal. i think that a clean room implementation of the DTD from the specification under the apache license (if that is possible) may be easier and quicker than untangling the legal issues. same goes for http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/shark/dtd/TC-1025_schema_10_xpdl.xsd would this be possible? ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository. do you intend to ban distribution by maven? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/2/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, hi Jacopo based on past comments in this list I'd like to add that this is a pre-built release (e.g. the objects and Derby demo database are already set up and packaged in the distribution); we did this because it can take up to 20 minutes (with slower hardware) to build the whole project from scratch and this could waste too much of your (and that of the persons that just want to give a look at it) time. i think some confusion has arisen over the terms we use. in apache terms, a source distribution is a plain export from the source repository whereas a binary distribution is anything else. lots of projects here ship binary releases with source in: just because a release contains some source it doesn't make it a source distribution binary distributions are mainly for the convenience of users. source distributions target other audiences including (potential) developers, downstream packagers and archivists. they are quick and easy to create (all the release manager needs to do is export the tag and compress) so it's recommended that source distributions are produced for each release as well as any binaries. However, if you want to play with a clean source distribution (for example, if you want to run the RAT tool etc...), just run the clean-all ant script: all the objects and the db will be removed. run RAT against binary and source distributions of a release but not very many binary checks have been automated yet. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Robert, others interested, I'm still not sure whether or not we will want to do this going forward because I'm not sure how a source distribution would be used for a project like OFBiz. Still, if there is any demand for it then I agree we should do it. However we go in the future, this would be a good thing to include in our Test Snapshot process, so I've added src distribution files for this release. They are listed on the release page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/wAE For convenience I'll including the URLs below as well. Thanks again to everyone for reviewing this and for help in moving OFBiz through the incubation process. -David http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- src-4.0.0.TS5.tgz http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- src-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.asc http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- src-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.md5 http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- src-4.0.0.TS5.zip http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- src-4.0.0.TS5.zip.asc http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- src-4.0.0.TS5.zip.md5 On Nov 4, 2006, at 5:20 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/2/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, hi Jacopo based on past comments in this list I'd like to add that this is a pre-built release (e.g. the objects and Derby demo database are already set up and packaged in the distribution); we did this because it can take up to 20 minutes (with slower hardware) to build the whole project from scratch and this could waste too much of your (and that of the persons that just want to give a look at it) time. i think some confusion has arisen over the terms we use. in apache terms, a source distribution is a plain export from the source repository whereas a binary distribution is anything else. lots of projects here ship binary releases with source in: just because a release contains some source it doesn't make it a source distribution binary distributions are mainly for the convenience of users. source distributions target other audiences including (potential) developers, downstream packagers and archivists. they are quick and easy to create (all the release manager needs to do is export the tag and compress) so it's recommended that source distributions are produced for each release as well as any binaries. However, if you want to play with a clean source distribution (for example, if you want to run the RAT tool etc...), just run the clean-all ant script: all the objects and the db will be removed. run RAT against binary and source distributions of a release but not very many binary checks have been automated yet. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/4/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, others interested, I'm still not sure whether or not we will want to do this going forward because I'm not sure how a source distribution would be used for a project like OFBiz. the same way it's used for any other project: as a record of the exact source that created the binary distributions. the source is the release. the binaries are conveniences for users. Still, if there is any demand for it then I agree we should do it. there's already demand from people on this list. we like source :-) in addition, downstream packagers prefer source distributions so they can patch and package them for their particular target platforms. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
On 11/4/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the same way it's used for any other project: as a record of the exact source that created the binary distributions. the source is the release. the binaries are conveniences for users. +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Unless we change the name to open binary, I'm going to agree with Robert and Justin. Source releases are what we're about here. Craig On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 11/4/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the same way it's used for any other project: as a record of the exact source that created the binary distributions. the source is the release. the binaries are conveniences for users. +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
If I'm not mistaken, we should be just about ready to graduate OFBiz. It's doing very nicely, and the comunity continues to grow. -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator group and the Incubator PMC. The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of test snapshot release, and it appears from recent conversations that this will most likely soon be required for all podlings nearing graduation. Based on our experience this has been a valuable exercise and through these 5 tries we have made significant improvements to the legal and other aspects of OFBiz and eventual releases. You'll recognize most of this from the similar message I sent on September 22nd for our TS3. Thanks to feedback from various people (especially Robert Burrell Duncan and the RAT tool) we have corrected many license header issues and fleshed out the NOTICE file, which are now both hopefully up to par. The intent of this release is not to be something that will be maintained over time or used be end-users of the project, and there is no branch for it in SVN. Our goal with this test snapshot release was to create an initial release process and make sure that all of the artifacts are in place as needed. This includes: - all license headers and copyright notices in place (ASL2 headers) - no remaining old copyright notices or headers - NOTICE, LICENSE, KEYS, et cetera files in place - test proper zip and tgz files, plus the md5 and asc files for each - put README file and other such things in place to make it (hopefully) easy for an end user to run OOTB Based on what has been established as part of this test snapshot experience we plan to do a real release (version 4.0.0) after graduation with a branch and such that will be maintained over time and that is meant to be used by end-users, but those (again) are not the intents of this test snapshot release. The files for the release are available in my people.apache.org account, see the links below for detailed locations. -David http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.md5 http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.asc http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.md5 http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.asc - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5
Hi all, based on past comments in this list I'd like to add that this is a pre-built release (e.g. the objects and Derby demo database are already set up and packaged in the distribution); we did this because it can take up to 20 minutes (with slower hardware) to build the whole project from scratch and this could waste too much of your (and that of the persons that just want to give a look at it) time. However, if you want to play with a clean source distribution (for example, if you want to run the RAT tool etc...), just run the clean-all ant script: all the objects and the db will be removed. Jacopo David E Jones wrote: The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator group and the Incubator PMC. The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of test snapshot release, and it appears from recent conversations that this will most likely soon be required for all podlings nearing graduation. Based on our experience this has been a valuable exercise and through these 5 tries we have made significant improvements to the legal and other aspects of OFBiz and eventual releases. You'll recognize most of this from the similar message I sent on September 22nd for our TS3. Thanks to feedback from various people (especially Robert Burrell Duncan and the RAT tool) we have corrected many license header issues and fleshed out the NOTICE file, which are now both hopefully up to par. The intent of this release is not to be something that will be maintained over time or used be end-users of the project, and there is no branch for it in SVN. Our goal with this test snapshot release was to create an initial release process and make sure that all of the artifacts are in place as needed. This includes: - all license headers and copyright notices in place (ASL2 headers) - no remaining old copyright notices or headers - NOTICE, LICENSE, KEYS, et cetera files in place - test proper zip and tgz files, plus the md5 and asc files for each - put README file and other such things in place to make it (hopefully) easy for an end user to run OOTB Based on what has been established as part of this test snapshot experience we plan to do a real release (version 4.0.0) after graduation with a branch and such that will be maintained over time and that is meant to be used by end-users, but those (again) are not the intents of this test snapshot release. The files for the release are available in my people.apache.org account, see the links below for detailed locations. -David http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.md5 http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.asc http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.md5 http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.asc - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
