On 19 Jun 2004, at 22:49, Sebastian Bazley wrote:
<snip>
Sebastian,
Any follow-up? I'd like to find a way to ensure/clarify that you aren't
a -1.
Sorry for the delay in replying.
The -1 was primarily intended to ensure that there would be continuing access to redistributable build outputs, which none of the Python Gump installations seem to offer at present. I'm not a -1 once that has been addressed; I just want to ensure continuity.
am i right in thinking that by 'redistributable build outputs' you mean the jar's etc that result from running gump?
IIRC there are some issues about allowing the artifacts created by gump to be distributed from ASF machines. i think that the board is of the opinion that only releases approved by a pmc can be distributed.
if this is the case, then i'd say that the -1 is probably invalid. if the output can't be redistribute directly then the presence or absence of this feature shouldn't be an issue.
i do agree that it would be good to make available distributions created by gump but this may need to happen offshore. one approach would be to ask ibiblio if they were willing to host unofficial daily builds of ASF products created offshore. we'd then need to find a volunteer willing to run an unofficial gump on a spare machine and push the results to ibiblio. only when these measure were in place would the ability to push the gump results to ibiblio be necessary.
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
