Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
It looks like this did indeed fall completely by the wayside. I think at the bare minimum we should get a 1.0 release binary put out for this. Donald, are you still willing to push that? If not, I am willing to take that over... can I even do that without being PMC? If I can, I'll figure out what needs to be done and such. Thanks, Erik B. Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Jason Warner wrote: --=_Part_1659_18852684.1204042635536 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline What happened to this vote? I checked the tags and the code was never moved over. Did this pass? Do we have an official binary I can link to on the wiki docs? On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 4:52 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Lin Sun wrote: The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are loaded in Eclipse IDE.You are right they don't have ASL license headers but I don't see license headers associated with these files normally. The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don't have ASL license headers either. Also, these files are not in the assembly. Are these files machine generated? Whether or not they end up in an assembly doesn't really matter... They seem non-trivial to me and should have a license header. I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. Of course we are using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo. Any advice here? I did a little research for this. It seems we must avoid implying that JBoss is the source of this code. As long as the distribution name (and executable name, I would think) don't use JBoss in the name we're doing this. Internal file names should be fine. So, in my opinion, we're ok here... So, pending the license header and file permission questions, I'd say this looks good. --kevan -- ~Jason Warner --=_Part_1659_18852684.1204042635536 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline What happened to this vote?nbsp; I checked the tags and the code was never moved over.nbsp; Did this pass?nbsp; Do we have an official binary I can link to on the wiki docs?brbrdiv class=gmail_quoteOn Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 4:52 PM, Kevan Miller lt;a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/ agt; wrote:br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;div class=Ih2E3dbr On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Lin Sun wrote:br br gt; The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are loadedbr gt; in Eclipse IDE. nbsp; nbsp;You are right they don#39;t have ASL license headersbr gt; but I don#39;t see license headers associated with these files normally.br gt; The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don#39;t have ASL licensebr gt; headers either. nbsp; Also, these files are not in the assembly.br br /divAre these files machine generated? Whether or not they end up in anbr assembly doesn#39;t really matter... They seem non-trivial to me andbr should have a license header.br div class=Ih2E3dbr gt;br gt;br gt; I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. nbsp; Of course we arebr gt; using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo. nbsp;Anybr gt; advice here?br br br /divI did a little research for this. It seems we must avoid implying thatbr JBoss is the source of this code. As long as the distribution namebr (and executable name, I would think) don#39;t use quot;JBossquot; in the namebr we#39;re doing this. Internal file names should be fine. So, in mybr opinion, we#39;re ok here...br br So, pending the license header and file permission questions, I#39;d saybr this looks good.br font color=#88br --kevanbr br /font/blockquote/divbrbr clear=allbr-- br~Jason Warner --=_Part_1659_18852684.1204042635536--
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Erik B. Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Donald, are you still willing to push that? If not, I am willing to take that over... can I even do that without being PMC? If I can, I'll figure out what needs to be done and such. Yes, you can. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
What happened to this vote? I checked the tags and the code was never moved over. Did this pass? Do we have an official binary I can link to on the wiki docs? On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 4:52 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Lin Sun wrote: The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are loaded in Eclipse IDE.You are right they don't have ASL license headers but I don't see license headers associated with these files normally. The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don't have ASL license headers either. Also, these files are not in the assembly. Are these files machine generated? Whether or not they end up in an assembly doesn't really matter... They seem non-trivial to me and should have a license header. I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. Of course we are using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo. Any advice here? I did a little research for this. It seems we must avoid implying that JBoss is the source of this code. As long as the distribution name (and executable name, I would think) don't use JBoss in the name we're doing this. Internal file names should be fine. So, in my opinion, we're ok here... So, pending the license header and file permission questions, I'd say this looks good. --kevan -- ~Jason Warner
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
What are they .project and .classpath files? They don't have ASL license headers... I assume JBoss is a trademarked name. We are using it in some file names and in some file contents. Are we handling this correctly? I don't know the answer off hand. There was a recent discussion about aggregating migration tools in a common devtools directory. Was there a consensus reached? --kevan On 11/2/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
Strange. In j2g-eclipse-plugin-1.0.0-RC1-deployable.ziphttp://people.apache.org/~dwoods/releases/j2g-1.0.0/j2g-eclipse-plugin-1.0.0-RC1-deployable.zipthe LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files are write-only (i.e. I have to chmod +r to read them). I haven't tried building yet. Is this an artifact of your build environment? --kevan On 11/2/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are loaded in Eclipse IDE.You are right they don't have ASL license headers but I don't see license headers associated with these files normally. The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don't have ASL license headers either. Also, these files are not in the assembly. I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. Of course we are using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo. Any advice here? About the recent discussion, I don't remember anyone mentioned any action plans in any schedule, so I assume that is not an item for this 1.0 release. Lin On Nov 6, 2007 4:20 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are they .project and .classpath files? They don't have ASL license headers... I assume JBoss is a trademarked name. We are using it in some file names and in some file contents. Are we handling this correctly? I don't know the answer off hand. There was a recent discussion about aggregating migration tools in a common devtools directory. Was there a consensus reached? --kevan On 11/2/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
hmm... this may be something unique on Donald's build machine or a non-windows machine. I don't see this prob on my winxp machine. Lin On Nov 6, 2007 6:40 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strange. In j2g-eclipse-plugin-1.0.0-RC1-deployable.zip the LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files are write-only ( i.e. I have to chmod +r to read them). I haven't tried building yet. Is this an artifact of your build environment? --kevan On 11/2/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
I built it on Linux (SLED10). Will have to take a look -Donald Lin Sun wrote: hmm... this may be something unique on Donald's build machine or a non-windows machine. I don't see this prob on my winxp machine. Lin On Nov 6, 2007 6:40 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strange. In j2g-eclipse-plugin-1.0.0-RC1-deployable.zip the LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files are write-only ( i.e. I have to chmod +r to read them). I haven't tried building yet. Is this an artifact of your build environment? --kevan On 11/2/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
No, the reorg was for post 1.0.0 discussion. The whole idea, is to get J2G out there as-is and get some real-world user feedback on it -Donald Lin Sun wrote: The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are loaded in Eclipse IDE.You are right they don't have ASL license headers but I don't see license headers associated with these files normally. The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don't have ASL license headers either. Also, these files are not in the assembly. I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. Of course we are using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo. Any advice here? About the recent discussion, I don't remember anyone mentioned any action plans in any schedule, so I assume that is not an item for this 1.0 release. Lin On Nov 6, 2007 4:20 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are they .project and .classpath files? They don't have ASL license headers... I assume JBoss is a trademarked name. We are using it in some file names and in some file contents. Are we handling this correctly? I don't know the answer off hand. There was a recent discussion about aggregating migration tools in a common devtools directory. Was there a consensus reached? --kevan On 11/2/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
Starting discussion thread for Vote thread at - http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-J2G-1.0.0-RC1-tf4740253s134.html -Donald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
