On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we can also consider these remaining 3 complete as well, no?
Yes, meant to ask about those when I did the release. The IP clearance was done around the time I came on board but the items were not checked out, I was unsure at the time if there was still some verification that needed to be done but I think it was just a lapse of nobody marking them as done. The dependencies and the distribution is all clear so they should all be complete AFAIK. Kalle > -- Do All the software in the codebase, are licensed (or > multi-licensed) under the Apache licence? > -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the > Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed > code and redistribute? > -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or > more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, > MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms? > > We couldn't have done a release without all 3 passing. > > Les > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Awesome, thanks Kalle! >> As to the comment about the committers, should we flag this in a board >> report yet? My opinion is that this might stir up things unnecessarily - we >> might resolve it internally before we attempt to graduate, and the IPMC >> wouldn't have needed to been bothered with it. Or if we should keep it in >> the report, maybe state that we're actively addressing it. >> As for the documentation - I think we're doing well enough in that area for >> the STATUS document. Sure, it can be improved (it can always be improved), >> but I've heard from others that it is already better than even some >> graduated sites' documentation. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot hat >> we can still do, but as far as the STATUS is concerned, I think we're good. >> My .02 >> Les >> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> See the proposed board report at >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/board/2010-07.txt and >>> comment/edit as you like. I'll add it to the board Wiki tomorrow COB. >>> >>> On STATUS, I say we can check this off: >>> -- Does the documentation site has enough information on the >>> architecure, design decisions and >>> modules? >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Sorry - sent accidentally. Any blocking items should still be documented >>> > in >>> > the status file in SVN - I don't have access to it at the moment... >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Kalle, >>> >> >>> >> I haven't started it yet, and will be preoccupied today and tomorrow. >>> >> Would you mind giving a crack at it? >>> >> >>> >> The only blocking items that I can think of are >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen < >>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Les & others... just checking in case you've already started writing >>> >>> up the board report that's due on 14th. I'll be happy to do it if >>> >>> nobody's done it. The obvious highlight is 1.0.0 release, let me know >>> >>> if there are other big items that should be mentioned. I suppose we >>> >>> should also mention that project plans to release 1.0.1/1.1.0 and >>> >>> graduate in the next period, right? Any blocking items on the >>> >>> graduation checklist Les? >>> >>> >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >
