Liblicense 04 release todo - Revision history

Scott Shawcroft at 20:58, 22 August 2007

2007-08-22T20:58:50Z

Scott Shawcroft at 23:49, 21 August 2007

2007-08-21T23:49:28Z

Scott Shawcroft at 21:17, 20 August 2007

2007-08-20T21:17:03Z

Scott Shawcroft: /* default-content-license */

2007-08-17T23:12:00Z

‎default-content-license

Scott Shawcroft at 21:17, 17 August 2007

2007-08-17T21:17:24Z

Scott Shawcroft at 21:15, 17 August 2007

2007-08-17T21:15:50Z

Scott Shawcroft: /* default-content-license */

2007-08-16T23:37:59Z

‎default-content-license

Jason Kivlighn at 23:21, 16 August 2007

2007-08-16T23:21:12Z

Jon Phillips at 23:16, 16 August 2007

2007-08-16T23:16:27Z

Jason Kivlighn at 22:58, 16 August 2007

2007-08-16T22:58:56Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 * package (liblicense, liblicense-kde, and liblicense-gnome)
 ** <del>source</del> [https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=80503&package_id=238700&release_id=533852 sf]
-** rpm
+** <del>rpm</del>
 ** deb
 ** ebuilds (bugs 187196, 185689, and 78021 in gentoo's bugzilla)
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 * publicity
-** freshmeat
+** <del>freshmeat</del>
-** sourceforge
+** <del>sourceforge</del>
 ** CC techblog (scott's wrap-up)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *** We've broken it up into liblicense{,-kde,-gnome}
-* tag svn
+* <del>tag svn</del>
 * package (liblicense, liblicense-kde, and liblicense-gnome)
-** source
+** <del>source</del> [https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=80503&package_id=238700&release_id=533852 sf]
 ** rpm
 ** deb
 ** ebuilds (bugs 187196, 185689, and 78021 in gentoo's bugzilla)
-** test them!
-** Core dependencies:
+* Core dependencies:
-*** libraptor
+** libraptor
-*** exempi
+** exempi
-** GNOME Integration dependencies:
+* GNOME Integration dependencies:
-*** liblicense python bindings
+** liblicense python bindings
-*** nautilus-python
+** nautilus-python
-*** gnome-python
+** gnome-python
-** KDE4 Integration dependencies:
+* KDE4 Integration dependencies:
-*** kdelibs4 (tested on alpha2 and beta1)
+** kdelibs4 (tested on alpha2 and beta1)
 * publicity
 ** freshmeat
 ** sourceforge
-** ?
+** CC techblog (scott's wrap-up)
 == Asheesh's comments ==

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *** I found [http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/1998/07/17/0000.html one explanation] of it while Googling
 *** Jakin: I think this is a premature concern; once things stabilize I think this is a good idea.  At version 0.3, people should expect that source and binary compatibility isn't guaranteed.
-** not clear what default-content-license does, exactly- maybe replace 'Default Content License' with 'choose the default license for new content you create' or something like that? (whatever is accurate  :)
+** <del>not clear what default-content-license does, exactly- maybe replace 'Default Content License' with 'choose the default license for new content you create' or something like that? (whatever is accurate  :) </del>
 ** <del>I'd get rid of the frame around the license chooser. Not used by most gnome apps.</del>
 ** <del>URI: what goes there? I assume the license URI, but I'd expect the license chooser would set that, and it doesn't appear to.</del> (Changed to license URI.  If license chooser doesn't set this field, then we've still got a problem)
@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 * <del>Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists.  That's quite odd.</del>
 ** jakin: I don't mind.  In a general sense, those combinations could exist in the future.  This license selector is not CC specific.
-* How do I unset the default license on my desktop?  I ran it once, and it seemed to automatically save, and but I don't want to have set a default license.
+* <del>How do I unset the default license on my desktop?  I ran it once, and it seemed to automatically save, and but I don't want to have set a default license.</del>
 * <del>UI is way confusing, dudes</del>

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 === default-content-license ===
 * <del>In "Creative Commons - Attribution-NoDerivs - 3.0.0", 3.0.0 really should be 3.0</del> (API allows for arbitrary version divisions)
-* Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists.  That's quite odd.
+* <del>Also, default-content-license seems to allow you to check boxes to create combinations where no license exists.  That's quite odd.</del>
 ** jakin: I don't mind.  In a general sense, those combinations could exist in the future.  This license selector is not CC specific.
 * How do I unset the default license on my desktop?  I ran it once, and it seemed to automatically save, and but I don't want to have set a default license.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 *** <del>system settings module</del>
 *** <del>file properties license tab</del>
-** OLPC integration
+** <del>OLPC integration</del> (nearly done but will be external of ll releases)
-*** Journal integration
+*** <del>Journal integration</del>
-** GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled)
+** <del>GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled)</del>
 ** <del>Expand liblicense API to allow dynamically populating the jurisdiction selector</del>
 ** <del>Automated regression testing, especially for io modules.  We need to be *absolutely certain* that data won't be lost</del>

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ** GUI i18n (liblicense core already handled)
 ** <del>Expand liblicense API to allow dynamically populating the jurisdiction selector</del>
-** Automated regression testing, especially for io modules.  We need to be *absolutely certain* that data won't be lost
+** <del>Automated regression testing, especially for io modules.  We need to be *absolutely certain* that data won't be lost</del>
-** ODF support (jakin) :) Solve the problem for the world and get all the fame and glory!
+** <del>ODF support (jakin) :) Solve the problem for the world and get all the fame and glory!</del>
 * bugs/issues
 ** <del>License chooser api ironing out (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/2007-July/000539.html).  I could wrap the flags to hide the bit-shifting -- but before I do that, I want feedback as to whether this design, in general, works.</del>