Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0: ./ plugins/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model.edit/ plugins/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model/ plugins/org.apache.ge
Thanks Tim and Kevan! Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Kevan, yes I shall handle via: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-207 Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0:
Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for RC2 ?? If so, I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise. Thanks. Lin Sun wrote: Thanks Tim and Kevan! Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Kevan, yes I shall handle via: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-207 Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0:
Hi Tim, I think it would be nice to get this addressed, as this is the GUI that users will see before they click on the accept radio button to accept the license. But I can be convinced the other way too. Do you need to spin another build because of this site below is still pointing at your staging site? This is a snippet from the plugin.xml from org.apache.geronimo.st.v20.core_2.0.0.jar I installed: installableRuntime id=org.apache.geronimo.runtime.tomcat.20 featureVersion=2.0.1 featureId=org.apache.geronimo.installableruntime.tomcat.feature featureSite=http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/releases/RC2/staging_site/; path=geronimo-tomcat6-jee5-2.0.1.zip /installableRuntime Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for RC2 ?? If so, I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise. Thanks. Lin Sun wrote: Thanks Tim and Kevan! Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Kevan, yes I shall handle via: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-207 Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for RC2 ?? If so, I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise. Thanks. Hey Tim, From a binary perspective, things are fine. However, if the installation of the plugin is presenting LICENSE information that we purport to represent the license information for the plugin, and that information is incorrect. Then, yes, I think it needs to be fixed. --kevan
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0:
Hi again Lin, I'll create an RC3 to fix the licensing problems. But the plugin.xml for geronimo.st.v20.core_2.0.0.jar is correct if you look at it from the actual deployable zip that is being (and will be) voted on, or even in svn. It actually points to a real eclipse update site (e.g., http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/eclipse/updates). I change it on the staging site only so that when Scenario #2 is executed, and that particular plugin gets installed from the staging site, it will subsequently search on the staging site when downloading server runtimes. Otherwise, the download and install button of the Eclipse plugin could not be tested during the review period. That's also one of the reason that Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 are mutually exclusive. If you do Scenario #1, which is just an unzip of the deployable zip file, you cannot use the staging site to download and install the server runtimes. Thanks Lin Sun wrote: Hi Tim, I think it would be nice to get this addressed, as this is the GUI that users will see before they click on the accept radio button to accept the license. But I can be convinced the other way too. Do you need to spin another build because of this site below is still pointing at your staging site? This is a snippet from the plugin.xml from org.apache.geronimo.st.v20.core_2.0.0.jar I installed: installableRuntime id=org.apache.geronimo.runtime.tomcat.20 featureVersion=2.0.1 featureId=org.apache.geronimo.installableruntime.tomcat.feature featureSite=http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/releases/RC2/staging_site/; path=geronimo-tomcat6-jee5-2.0.1.zip /installableRuntime Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for RC2 ?? If so, I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise. Thanks. Lin Sun wrote: Thanks Tim and Kevan! Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Kevan, yes I shall handle via: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-207 Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0:
Okay, thanks for the information Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for RC2 ?? If so, I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise. Thanks. Hey Tim, From a binary perspective, things are fine. However, if the installation of the plugin is presenting LICENSE information that we purport to represent the license information for the plugin, and that information is incorrect. Then, yes, I think it needs to be fixed. --kevan -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0:
Hi Tim, cool. as long as you got it covered that is great. I was only looking at what I downloaded (didn't check the svn.). Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi again Lin, I'll create an RC3 to fix the licensing problems. But the plugin.xml for geronimo.st.v20.core_2.0.0.jar is correct if you look at it from the actual deployable zip that is being (and will be) voted on, or even in svn. It actually points to a real eclipse update site (e.g., http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/eclipse/updates). I change it on the staging site only so that when Scenario #2 is executed, and that particular plugin gets installed from the staging site, it will subsequently search on the staging site when downloading server runtimes. Otherwise, the download and install button of the Eclipse plugin could not be tested during the review period. That's also one of the reason that Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 are mutually exclusive. If you do Scenario #1, which is just an unzip of the deployable zip file, you cannot use the staging site to download and install the server runtimes. Thanks Lin Sun wrote: Hi Tim, I think it would be nice to get this addressed, as this is the GUI that users will see before they click on the accept radio button to accept the license. But I can be convinced the other way too. Do you need to spin another build because of this site below is still pointing at your staging site? This is a snippet from the plugin.xml from org.apache.geronimo.st.v20.core_2.0.0.jar I installed: installableRuntime id=org.apache.geronimo.runtime.tomcat.20 featureVersion=2.0.1 featureId=org.apache.geronimo.installableruntime.tomcat.feature featureSite=http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/releases/RC2/staging_site/; path=geronimo-tomcat6-jee5-2.0.1.zip /installableRuntime Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for RC2 ?? If so, I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise. Thanks. Lin Sun wrote: Thanks Tim and Kevan! Lin Tim McConnell wrote: Hi Kevan, yes I shall handle via: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-207 Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0: ./ plugins/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model.edit/ plugins/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model/ plugins/org.apache.ge
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/ Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan
Re: svn commit: r574770 - in /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.0: ./ plugins/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model.edit/ plugins/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model/ plugins/org.apache.ge
Hi Kevan, yes I shall handle via: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-207 Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote: I think we also need to update the license in the feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide. Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the feature.properties file is presented to a user when they install the Geronimo Eclipse plugin or server runtime using the Eclipse update manager, before he/she clicks on accept the license to install our Geronimo eclipse plugin or server runtime. It may make sense to put the contents of both the license and notice file there. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I didn't know what the feature.properties files were used for (just saw that they didn't have any non ASL/Geronimo artifacts). Thanks for reviewing! Lin or Tim, Is that something that one of you can take care of? --kevan -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
