+1 from me also. Sounds like a very good plan.

LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>
> To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [TRINIDAD] Some status
> 
> 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
>> 
>

Reply via email to