[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:30:35 -0500

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 14:21, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell_at_sun.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> But with all that said, how about we do this: we'll do a 1.6.7 release
>> from the 1.6.x branch after we do the code import. That release will
>> be performed by svncorp (we don't want to touch every file on that
>> branch to relicense it, and to switch file headers). The release
>> process can be followed/tracked by the Incubator PMC. I'll make sure
>> to relay pointers to all relevant threads as the release is performed.
> I don't think that releasing svn by svncorp without any Apache license
> proves anything except that they can make a release after moving the
> repository. So if it makes anyone happy, fine. But it's not an Apache
> release.
> I'd be interested in seeing a release after it's been licensed to Apache and
> has all of the Apache license, notice, and packaging.

It already has the Apache License (v2), and it uses a NOTICE file (per
the license), and our packaging is tighter/stronger than typical
Apache releases (per Justin's note). Are there other items to an
"Apache release" that are needed to demonstrate that the svn project
understands the proper release process?

The 1.7 release is not on the schedule at all, while we're going to do
a 1.6.7 release in a few weeks.

We're naturally very reticent to disrupt a prior-release branch with a
massive relicense.


Received on 2009-11-06 20:30:45 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.