Hi +1, sounds good. Maybe we should think about use other code highlight library with a license compatible with apache, but make a release comes first, so this should not be an stopper for that.
regards, Leonardo Uribe 2011/11/14 Scott O'Bryan <darkar...@gmail.com>: > Okay everyone, > > In case you were wondering of the status of Trinidad, here's where we are > at. There have been some major hurdles with JSF 2.0 and 2.1 that we have > been cleaning up (and my schedule has been tight as a result). Furthermore > we had a licensing issue with the Component Showcase which prevented the > release of Trinidad 2.0.1. > > So I'm going to try to get a release out this week and here is what I > propose: > > 1. I'm going to disable the Component Showcase from being distributed as > part of our builds. It will still be available in the source, but not as a > distributable. This will prevent us from distributing stuff with the LGPL > liscense (thanks for catching this guys). > > 2. I'm going to sync up the Trinidad 2.0.1 tag with what's currently in > Trunk. A lot of high priority issues came in and were fixed shortly after > the licensing issue was discovered and so I held off on the release of > Trinidad 2.0.1 until we could get these addressed and things had stabilized. > It looks like they have a bit so I'm thinking the trunk would make a good > 2.0.1 release rather then what is currently in the tag. > > 3. I'd like the change the trunk to become Trinidad 2.1.0 to reflect our > Faces 2.1 work. JSF 2.1 will be the bottom dependency for that branch. The > current 2.0.x branch would be moved to the branches for further bug fixing > and stuff (much like we did with 2.0 and 1.2). > > Please respond to this over the next day or so, so that I can get a feel for > what the community believes is best. :) > > Scott >
