I’ve just noticed that the formatting screwed up on that previous email. I was attempting to point out that Christian’s stated desire to not have the APIs in Apache Source Control may not be workable in all cases. Apologies for any confusion introduced by the lack of quote indent.
Regards, Tim > On 23 Jan 2017, at 04:54, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree. Additionally we should try to get the OSGi alliance to regularly > build and publish snapshots on their own. > Not having the APIs in apache source would be the best solution. > > Note that this would prevent implementing the API for any OSGi Util > specifications, which include implementation types in the API (e.g. Promises, > Tracker) nor will it work for Felix, (the OSGi API contains Filter and > FrameworkUtil). > > This is also not what other Apache projects do. Geronimo, for example, > provides Java EE spec APIs. > > Regards, > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 23 Jan 2017, at 01:28, Christian Schneider > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I agree. Additionally we should try to get the OSGi alliance to regularly > build and publish snapshots on their own. > Not having the APIs in apache source would be the best solution. > > Christian > > On 23.01.2017 10:19, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > As discussed on legal@ (see [1]), and in order to be able to track code IP > correctly, I propose that all commits that includes API code from the OSGi > Alliance are done in separate commit and include a reference to the public > source where the code comes from. > > Thoughts ? > Guillaume > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201701.mbox/%3ccaa66tppc9lp71ak4uoxsnz8qzg+bnutyntzspbt+z48dynu...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com >
