On 20/03/2009, at 2:17 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
So the Brett proposal looks fine too. I can mark the svnjava provider as optionnal and explain why on the scm site and explain how to use it.
That was all my opinion, so we should get it confirmed before release. Note that under the current FAQ the Sleepycat license (which this is equivalent to), is not allowed for inclusion.
I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-45, and added a couple more points on the list about how we can avoid it getting used without being aware of the license - putting it in a separate build profile and making sure it is not in the aggregating POM.
It can always go to mojo, but I think it'd be a shame to have to separate it, so it's worth asking.
- Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
