-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 04/22/2015 12:31 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
> Hi Wido,
> 
> I should have read the git log first :-)
> 
> No license issues and no code change needed. All I want to have is 
> rados-java in the central maven repository for two reasons: -
> central is the most reliable service - we can not upload our
> artifacts to central until we have a dependency on other
> repositories, and therefore users and developers are not able to
> reuse
> 
> I will send you a PR for the pom file. This is needed in order to
> compliy central repository upload policy, no functional changes,
> only meta-data.
> 

Got it! I merged the PR.

> And then, let's see.. do you own the repository in central repo?
> Basically either you can upload or I can upload for you if you give
> me permission, in any case I will try to help.
> 

No, I don't have one. You have my permission to upload rados-java to
your repo so that it can get into maven central.

Wido

> Best regards, Laszlo
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Wido den Hollander
> <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/21/2015 09:12 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I have uploaded the libvirt dependency to maven central and
>>>> you should never get the maven failure if the libvirt.org
>>>> server goes down, it will be downloaded from central. I have
>>>> sent a PR (#180) to remove the libvirt.org repository from
>>>> the build.
>>>> 
>>>> With ceph.org the situation: - I have requested permission
>>>> to publish like with libvirt, my request was rejected since
>>>> the ceph.com team holds ownership - The only solution from
>>>> here is to change the groupId of the dependency. -
>>>> org.apache.* is very likely no go, it is owned by apache,
>>>> artifacts are synchonrized to central through the apache
>>>> repository, which is for apache artifacts only. - we can
>>>> upload with a new groupId - suggestions are welcome
>>>> 
> 
> I wrote the rados-java bindings and licensed it under the Apache
> License .
> 
> I choose com.ceph as a package since that was the easiest way. It 
> would be changed but I don't want to break all the existing code
> for users.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Wido
> 
>>>> Regards, Laszlo
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=SbBH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to