Costin,
I agree with pretty much all of your particulars. To summarize, if I might:
- the ASF repository shall contain ASF jars, which don't
require oversight beyond the issuing PMC.
- the ASF repository should contain shared third party
jars for which the ASF has approved their use and
distribution.
- the ASF repository shall be mirrorable. Tools
intended to work with the ASF repository should
understand mirroring. [If not, they may select
a specific mirror, but I don't believe that we
want them to select the ASF repository as *the*
location.]
- multiple repositories are good things, and smart
tools should deal with multiple repositories.
- a smart tool might present a click-through license.
The repository should permit this as necessary.
[netbeans.org does this, by the way]
- ASF projects, however, must not rely upon unapproved
third party jar files in such manner as to compromise
their license integrity, even if that jar is not
distributed via the ASF repository.
> If this becomes an apache-wide policy, I strongly disagree
> that Maven can decide for apache policies.
I have proposed that the repository be a build-tool-neutral infrastructure
sub-project, since Dw expressed the willingness to have it under
infrastructure. I propose that Dion Gillard initially lead that effort,
taking advantage of his experience in the area. I don't believe that Dion
is a "Maven will define for all" kind of guy. Yes, the repository effects
all projects, but to me that just means that each PMC that cares to should
represent itself, not that we need to have dozens of people working this
out.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
