Hi Craig,
On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Congratulations on your successful 1.2 release.
Thanks!
>> I guess now we need to start getting into the Apache release
>> procedure. The docs [1] are still work in progress, so an advice
>> from our mentors is very much appreciated.
>
> Docs are not a reason to wait for release. In some sense, most docs
> are in a state of "almost there". The readiness of docs is quite
> subjective, unlike other aspects of incubation.
Actually by "docs" I meant the Incubator guidelines outlining the
expectations like where to put the LICENSE file, how to do a vote,
and such (not the Cayenne docs).
>> I'll do some research on my own as well (probably just look at
>> other incubating projects). If I understand correctly, with all
>> the proper disclaimers we can make a 2.0 release from the
>> incubator before the CLA situation is addressed 100% (it is now at
>> ~80%),
>
> I don't believe that the incubator will authorize a release prior
> to the IP issues being resolved. I've never seen a release approved
> with this kind of pending IP issue. But I haven't been tracking all
> your IP issues. My advice is not to ask to release prior to
> cleaning up all IP.
There is no IP *issues* per se, as Cayenne was developed from the
beginning with a compatible open source license. It basically comes
down to recording remaining CLA's that were already sent. And making
a decision on how to handle a few classes that we can't track (which,
considering the original open source license, we should find a way to
deal with).
>> and before Windows build LGPL dependency [2] is resolved?
>
> I think the JIRA has is correct. You cannot distribute any LGPL
> code from Apache, so you would have to have the user download,
> install, and link the launcher with your executable. It doesn't
> sound like your "binary" distribution can easily use this
> technique, though. So you would need either an alternative
> technology or a distribution of code and a process to link the
> pieces together. Good luck (I'm not familiar with the technology
> enough to help you here).
I think Roller released with LGPL dependencies, so there is a
precedent. But I am with you on the general idea that we shouldn't
rush it until it is ready. In practical terms it means we will need
to branch 2.0 (our "ObjectStyle -> Apache migration helper release"),
and continue developing 3.0 on HEAD, while we resolve all the things
above.
And while we are working on getting the CLA's in, I wanted to
understand and address other requirements, as I mentioned above.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jul 17 2006 - 23:27:23 EDT