Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
On 31/07/2011, at 8:57 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > Ok, I'll pick up from Ralph's discussion. > > On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> -0 >> >> I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if >> there's no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to >> fix them. I don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is >> maintaining. I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. >> >> However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: >> - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes >> that aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time > > If you can't fork any version of Aether per ASF board guidelines/mandate (I'm > only repeating what Ralph said) then what does it matter? And let's say this > is not the case, worst case you fork it at Github, make your changes and > create a binary. This doesn't hinder you from doing anything if the board > changed it's mind on this policy. My preference would certainly be not to > fork it but the license affords you that right. I think what has been said is the same in this regard. We can certainly legally fork it, but it's not a great idea. What I'm saying is that, as Maven is a project under the Apache License, it would give us more options if Aether was too. Just one example is If there is an insufficient abstraction and we need to make a customisation, we can pull a class or two in to Maven (even temporarily). That's preferable for everyone than having an unofficial fork at github, or having to replace the whole thing, or having to straddle two projects. I don't want us to be in a situation where we need to exercise the additional rights provided by the license, but that doesn't mean they're not a good thing to have. >> >> - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under >> the terms of the AL 2.0. > > There's precedent for redistributing EPL at the ASF, and the EPL is > commercially friendly. Millions of people use Eclipse, extend Eclipse so I > really don't think users have a problem with the EPL. Yes, that's true. I'm not saying we can't accept it at all. It does however impose more conditions than any previous release of Maven, so given the history and current state of things I feel like it would be better to be able to continue to use it under the Apache License. There's also plenty of precedent for dual-licensing at Eclipse - JGit and Jetty come to mind. I don't see what problem has been solved for either project by removing it. If changing it back cools this down and saves us all some time writing mail about hypotheticals, surely that's worth it alone :) > >> - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it >> > > As I said to Mark things here have changed I prefer in the EPL and what it > affords. If I have a choice of organization it's the Eclipse Foundation and > the preference is not to dual license. We may not agree about foundations or > licenses but our commonality is Maven users. If you believe you can serve > them better by forking the code and not joining the Aether project then > that's your prerogative. I can't honestly see how that would be, but you're > free to do what you like. > > I can't see what danger Maven would ever be in with Aether being at Eclipse > and EPL. Even less if people here chose to be committers on the project. The > current count is 6 people here being committers on Aether. The more people > from here over there the more likely your requests for change will be > incorporated. ... > > > The chances that upstream requests for change are not accepted are close to > zero, especially with a bunch of committers here on Aether. This is virtually > no different than Plexus and Modello. Kristian made the last set of changes > on a Plexus project and released them. I don't know when the last release of > Modello happened but I think that was Hervé. I believe that to be true, and to remain the case, but what I believe doesn't matter. I think you should also be listening to the fact that both of those people you mentioned voted -1 until the code was released at Eclipse. I don't want to put words in their mouth (so correct me if I'm wrong), but I interpret that as a sign that even with a low barrier, the current process is not optimal. Going back to your first paragraph above again, I don't want the only options to be "join Aether" or "fork the code". I'd like to fix any Maven bug without having to do those things 99% of the time. It is time to break the cycle of having to straddle projects. If some folks want to participate in Aether because they find that something fun to work on, that's great. I'm glad there's a low barrier. But nobody should be forced to join just because they want to serve Maven users. If that's the case, it's broken and we need to fix it. You've claimed that is possible - oth
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
Ok, I'll pick up from Ralph's discussion. On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > -0 > > I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's > no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I > don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. > I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. > > However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: > - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes that > aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time If you can't fork any version of Aether per ASF board guidelines/mandate (I'm only repeating what Ralph said) then what does it matter? And let's say this is not the case, worst case you fork it at Github, make your changes and create a binary. This doesn't hinder you from doing anything if the board changed it's mind on this policy. My preference would certainly be not to fork it but the license affords you that right. The chances that upstream requests for change are not accepted are close to zero, especially with a bunch of committers here on Aether. This is virtually no different than Plexus and Modello. Kristian made the last set of changes on a Plexus project and released them. I don't know when the last release of Modello happened but I think that was Hervé. > - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under > the terms of the AL 2.0. There's precedent for redistributing EPL at the ASF, and the EPL is commercially friendly. Millions of people use Eclipse, extend Eclipse so I really don't think users have a problem with the EPL. > - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it > As I said to Mark things here have changed I prefer in the EPL and what it affords. If I have a choice of organization it's the Eclipse Foundation and the preference is not to dual license. We may not agree about foundations or licenses but our commonality is Maven users. If you believe you can serve them better by forking the code and not joining the Aether project then that's your prerogative. I can't honestly see how that would be, but you're free to do what you like. I can't see what danger Maven would ever be in with Aether being at Eclipse and EPL. Even less if people here chose to be committers on the project. The current count is 6 people here being committers on Aether. The more people from here over there the more likely your requests for change will be incorporated. > I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. > > FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just > believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of > community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. > > - Brett > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. -- Unknown
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
I'm in the same boat. I can't in good conscience vote -1 because I am in no position to take on the task of doing a rewrite. OTOH, given the things people have said they would really like to do I am pretty sure this issue is going to keep coming up. For the same reasons as yours I'm going to have to vote -0. Ralph On Jul 29, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > -0 > > I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's > no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I > don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. > I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. > > However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: > - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes that > aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time > - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under > the terms of the AL 2.0. > - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it > > I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. > > FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just > believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of > community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. > > - Brett > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
+0 I think the license issue is a false problem as it is mixed with an IP issue and in any case we'll don't get back this code inside Maven land as its authors don't want. The issue to control this part of code is legitimate but the only solution is to rewrite it from scratch (again) cheers Arnaud On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > -0 > > I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if > there's no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to > fix them. I don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is > maintaining. I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. > > However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: > - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes > that aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time > - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used > under the terms of the AL 2.0. > - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it > > I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. > > FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just > believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of > community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. > > - Brett > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven > > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. > > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined > > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a > > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
Jesse, there is no private problem involved. The problem is solely that the Maven project just cannot decide itself what it is going to fix and how it will implement features that way. LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 7/29/11, Jesse McConnell wrote: > From: Jesse McConnell > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases > To: "Maven Developers List" > Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 6:26 PM > I know I stepped away from maven > quite some time ago, jetty and other > things just don't allow the time...but I have followed this > discussion > and I'll toss in my two cents. > > I would be +1 on this and would come to the defense of > jason and > sonatype on this because no matter what you want to argue > about what > has and hasn't been done, they have done a ton of the work > moving > maven forward over the last few years. maven-artifact > and a lot of > its plumbing has been a bane and annoyance for users and > developers > with maven alike for years. Aether does the job of > handling a chunk > of the heavy lifting and if its at all better then what is > there then > its a no brainer imo. > > I have known Jason for years and I like to think of him as > a friend > and I have always thought that he acted with the end users > of Maven in > mind, what he thinks is best for them. I think that > is one thing you > can count on, if he is involved with it then the motives, > corporate or > otherwise, are to support the end users better. Now > should that > differ from what the maven developer community at large > feels at some > point in the future then any license currently being > discussed has > options available to the maven developers. > > Trying to penalize Jason directly or Sonatype as some of > these > comments/discussions have done (not necessarily on this > thread) does > not benefit the end user. I don't really see the > point of delaying > the vote until the eclipse process has completed either, > better would > be to cc wayne beaton in on this and ask for early > acceptance to get > the ball rolling. > > No reason to be antagonistic about all this. > jesse > > -- > jesse mcconnell > jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:16, Brett Porter > wrote: > > -0 > > > > I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. > I'd accept it if there's no better way to get the problems > fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I don't think it's > good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. > I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. > > > > However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual > licensed: > > - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate > source code changes that aren't accepted upstream, > particularly if goals change over time > > - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it > can all be used under the terms of the AL 2.0. > > - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to > incorporate it > > > > I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. > > > > FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL > as a license, I just believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here > given its history, the early state of community development, > and with Maven as its primary consumer. > > > > - Brett > > > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a > vote to allow Maven > >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) > versions of Aether. > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results > determined > >> according to the policy. Discussion on this > question took place on a > >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL > Aether'. > >> > >> > - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > -- > > Brett Porter > > br...@apache.org > > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
I know I stepped away from maven quite some time ago, jetty and other things just don't allow the time...but I have followed this discussion and I'll toss in my two cents. I would be +1 on this and would come to the defense of jason and sonatype on this because no matter what you want to argue about what has and hasn't been done, they have done a ton of the work moving maven forward over the last few years. maven-artifact and a lot of its plumbing has been a bane and annoyance for users and developers with maven alike for years. Aether does the job of handling a chunk of the heavy lifting and if its at all better then what is there then its a no brainer imo. I have known Jason for years and I like to think of him as a friend and I have always thought that he acted with the end users of Maven in mind, what he thinks is best for them. I think that is one thing you can count on, if he is involved with it then the motives, corporate or otherwise, are to support the end users better. Now should that differ from what the maven developer community at large feels at some point in the future then any license currently being discussed has options available to the maven developers. Trying to penalize Jason directly or Sonatype as some of these comments/discussions have done (not necessarily on this thread) does not benefit the end user. I don't really see the point of delaying the vote until the eclipse process has completed either, better would be to cc wayne beaton in on this and ask for early acceptance to get the ball rolling. No reason to be antagonistic about all this. jesse -- jesse mcconnell jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:16, Brett Porter wrote: > -0 > > I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's > no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I > don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. > I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. > > However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: > - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes that > aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time > - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under > the terms of the AL 2.0. > - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it > > I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. > > FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just > believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of > community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. > > - Brett > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
-0 I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing the work. I'd accept it if there's no better way to get the problems fixed for whoever is working to fix them. I don't think it's good to get stuck on an old version no one is maintaining. I'm happy to discuss ideas for alternatives. However, I would strongly prefer it to remain dual licensed: - it gives us more options if we need to incorporate source code changes that aren't accepted upstream, particularly if goals change over time - consumers know what they are getting from Maven - it can all be used under the terms of the AL 2.0. - it had the terms of the AL 2.0 when we agreed to incorporate it I continue to hope that will be reconsidered. FWIW, I don't have any argument with regard to the EPL as a license, I just believe AL 2.0 is appropriate here given its history, the early state of community development, and with Maven as its primary consumer. - Brett On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Manfred Moser wrote: > Also .. from what I understand Maven and core plugins depend on a whole > bunch of other libraries that are not in Maven and/or not in Apache so as > long as there is license compatibilitys I am sure the Maven devs can work > with upstream projects like Aether just like others like commons* or > whatever else. Repeat this over at the discuss thread (it doesn't belong here). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
Also .. from what I understand Maven and core plugins depend on a whole bunch of other libraries that are not in Maven and/or not in Apache so as long as there is license compatibilitys I am sure the Maven devs can work with upstream projects like Aether just like others like commons* or whatever else. manfred Maven dependsOn Wed, July 27, 2011 2:33 pm, Mark Derricutt wrote: > And was just as broken in 2.2.x with the exact same problem from what I've > been told by Richard who diagnosed and raised the JIRA ticket. > On 28/07/2011, at 8:46 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> Remember: all this used to be just a part of maven-core in v2... > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
And was just as broken in 2.2.x with the exact same problem from what I've been told by Richard who diagnosed and raised the JIRA ticket. On 28/07/2011, at 8:46 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Remember: all this used to be just a part of maven-core in v2...
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
A point of process. If this vote goes negative, I'll just throw another one when the code is live at Eclipse.org. To Dan's point: I posted an analysis to the effect that the dual-license has no benefit to us, and no one offered any counter-argument. Perhaps Dan or someone else would care to offer an alternative analysis on the DISCUSS thread? On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > >> As long as 1.12+ of Aether makes it into the 3.0.4 release: >> >> +1 NON Binding >> > > What I would consider to be the fix set for 3.0.4 is here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/ > > Benjamin and I will continue to support these builds and push back any fixes > we can into the ASF. > >> Without it Maven quite easily gets seriously broken :( >> >> On 28/07/2011, at 6:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >>> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >>> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >>> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >>> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > - > > A party which is not afraid of letting culture, > business, and welfare go to ruin completely can > be omnipotent for a while. > > -- Jakob Burckhardt > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > As long as 1.12+ of Aether makes it into the 3.0.4 release: > > +1 NON Binding > What I would consider to be the fix set for 3.0.4 is here: http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/ Benjamin and I will continue to support these builds and push back any fixes we can into the ASF. > Without it Maven quite easily gets seriously broken :( > > On 28/07/2011, at 6:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
> Without it Maven quite easily gets seriously broken :( Thats exactly the reason. Do you like to have the Apache Maven project depending on a part which you have no control over? Which might change in a way which just doesn't fit for Maven? Remember: all this used to be just a part of maven-core in v2... LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Mark Derricutt wrote: > From: Mark Derricutt > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases > To: "Maven Developers List" > Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 8:32 PM > As long as 1.12+ of Aether makes it > into the 3.0.4 release: > > +1 NON Binding > > Without it Maven quite easily gets seriously broken :( > > On 28/07/2011, at 6:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote > to allow Maven > > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) > versions of Aether. > > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results > determined > > according to the policy. Discussion on this question > took place on a > > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
As long as 1.12+ of Aether makes it into the 3.0.4 release: +1 NON Binding Without it Maven quite easily gets seriously broken :( On 28/07/2011, at 6:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
-1 too and same reasons. -- Olivier Le 27 juil. 2011 21:05, "John Casey" a écrit : > -1 > > Definitely not until it's all the way moved to Eclipse...and even then, > I'm personally reluctant. > > I'd much prefer to see Aether's functionality moved back into Maven, and > streamlined to the point where it's easier to maintain. > > On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > John Casey > Developer, PMC Chair - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) > Blog: http://www.johnofalltrades.name/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
just for the record, -1 too waiting for Eclipse release, which is coming soon: great! Regards, Hervé Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011, Benson Margulies a écrit : > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
-1 for same reasons, but I'd be happy to switch to a +1 if the license was changed back to dual Eclipse/Apache AND it gets to Eclipse. Dan On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:04:42 PM John Casey wrote: > -1 > > Definitely not until it's all the way moved to Eclipse...and even then, > I'm personally reluctant. > > I'd much prefer to see Aether's functionality moved back into Maven, and > streamlined to the point where it's easier to maintain. > > On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven > > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. > > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined > > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a > > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
Yea, that sounds good! Thanks for the update! LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Jason van Zyl wrote: > From: Jason van Zyl > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases > To: "Maven Developers List" > Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 7:03 PM > There are 3 weeks left for community > review, another week for the creation review, and another > for the provisioning. So it's 5 weeks tops. > > http://eclipse.org/proposals/technology.aether/ > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > > > -1 > > > > I can wait too. > > > > Kristian > > > > Den 27. juli 2011 kl. 20:55 skrev Mark Struberg : > > > >> as long as it's not over at Eclipse.org it's a > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> from me. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Benson Margulies > wrote: > >> > >>> From: Benson Margulies > >>> Subject: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven > Releases > >>> To: "Maven Developers List" > >>> Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 6:45 PM > >>> As per the approved policy, this > >>> message opens a vote to allow Maven > >>> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category > B) versions of > >>> Aether. > >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the > results > >>> determined > >>> according to the policy. Discussion on this > question took > >>> place on a > >>> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL > Aether'. > >>> > >>> > - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > - > > In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a > rational > and technical order to justify his work and to be justified > in it. > > -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
-1 for the same reasons. On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, John Casey wrote: > -1 > > Definitely not until it's all the way moved to Eclipse...and even then, I'm personally reluctant. > > I'd much prefer to see Aether's functionality moved back into Maven, and streamlined to the point where it's easier to maintain. > > On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >> As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > John Casey > Developer, PMC Chair - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) > Blog: http://www.johnofalltrades.name/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
-1 Definitely not until it's all the way moved to Eclipse...and even then, I'm personally reluctant. I'd much prefer to see Aether's functionality moved back into Maven, and streamlined to the point where it's easier to maintain. On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- John Casey Developer, PMC Chair - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) Blog: http://www.johnofalltrades.name/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
There are 3 weeks left for community review, another week for the creation review, and another for the provisioning. So it's 5 weeks tops. http://eclipse.org/proposals/technology.aether/ On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > -1 > > I can wait too. > > Kristian > > Den 27. juli 2011 kl. 20:55 skrev Mark Struberg : > >> as long as it's not over at Eclipse.org it's a >> >> -1 >> >> from me. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >>> From: Benson Margulies >>> Subject: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases >>> To: "Maven Developers List" >>> Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 6:45 PM >>> As per the approved policy, this >>> message opens a vote to allow Maven >>> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of >>> Aether. >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results >>> determined >>> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took >>> place on a >>> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
-1 I can wait too. Kristian Den 27. juli 2011 kl. 20:55 skrev Mark Struberg : > as long as it's not over at Eclipse.org it's a > > -1 > > from me. > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> From: Benson Margulies >> Subject: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases >> To: "Maven Developers List" >> Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 6:45 PM >> As per the approved policy, this >> message opens a vote to allow Maven >> releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of >> Aether. >> The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results >> determined >> according to the policy. Discussion on this question took >> place on a >> thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
as long as it's not over at Eclipse.org it's a -1 from me. LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Benson Margulies wrote: > From: Benson Margulies > Subject: [VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases > To: "Maven Developers List" > Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 6:45 PM > As per the approved policy, this > message opens a vote to allow Maven > releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of > Aether. > The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results > determined > according to the policy. Discussion on this question took > place on a > thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
[VOTE] Incorporate EPL Ether in Maven Releases
As per the approved policy, this message opens a vote to allow Maven releases to depend on EPL (and thus Category B) versions of Aether. The vote will be open for 72 hours and the results determined according to the policy. Discussion on this question took place on a thread labelled '[DISCUSS] incorporate EPL Aether'. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
