Okay, I'm going to switch back to the ASF for the organization.
Shane
On Feb 18, 2008 1:58 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's the latter... looking again at what Sebb said, I think
> what was already there was correct.
>
> On 19/02/2008, at 8:48 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>
> > I believe that the template is correct: the license file should be
> > picking
> > up the pom.organization.name value. What I'm not sure is whether the
> > organization name should be Apache NMaven (the podling name) or The
> > Apache
> > Software Foundation.
> >
> > Shane
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2008 1:33 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> So is the template wrong, or was Sebb's suggestion incorrect?
> >>
> >> On 19/02/2008, at 8:30 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is not much we can do on this one because it is picking up
> >>> the ${
> >>> pom.organization.name} value for the license.
> >>>
> >>> Shane
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 18, 2008 12:37 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19/02/2008, at 7:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> <organization>
> >>>>> - <name>The Apache Software Foundation</name>
> >>>>> - <url>http://www.apache.org/</url>
> >>>>> + <name>Apache NMaven</name>
> >>>>> + <url>http://incubator.apache.org/nmaven</url>
> >>>>> </organization>
> >>>>
> >>>> This change seems incorrect - in fact this should just be
> >>>> inherited.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it's coming out wrong because of it, maybe the resources
> >>>> should be
> >>>> using ${pom.name} instead of ${pom.organization.name} somewhere?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Brett
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Brett Porter
> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brett Porter
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
