Hi all
I think Guillaume’s idea of defining that provisional, WIP, interim, temporary
OSGi API commits be isolated and refer to a concrete OSGi Repository commit
(URL ideally) makes sense to me. So that we can track back this source.
In any case, OSGi API will always bei OSGi copyrighted and t
Anyone else, we're missing one binding +1 vote
Thanks
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziege...@apache.org
Guillaume Nodet wrote
> Well maybe it should, but again, I don't think it has always been done
> correctly in the past...
> Hence this proposal to discuss what options we have to actually correctly
> implement it.
>
As said, it must be option #2, always and I'm not aware of any case
where it hasn'
Well maybe it should, but again, I don't think it has always been done
correctly in the past...
Hence this proposal to discuss what options we have to actually correctly
implement it.
2017-01-23 23:30 GMT+01:00 Carsten Ziegeler :
> As discussed already it's always #2
>
> Carsten
>
> Guillaume Nod
As discussed already it's always #2
Carsten
Guillaume Nodet wrote
> Right, we discussed that.
> My understanding is that we have 2 options:
> * either the API is committed first at Apache, in which case, it can't
> really be copyrighted to the OSGi Alliance
> * or it's copyrighted to the OSGi
Right, we discussed that.
My understanding is that we have 2 options:
* either the API is committed first at Apache, in which case, it can't
really be copyrighted to the OSGi Alliance
* or it's copyrighted to the OSGi Alliance and it has to pre-exist the
commit in our svn source tree
If we cho
Well, we discussed this in length last week, and as a matter of fact the
OSGi API which is under development is not available publically. So how
can we define a policy that is practically impossible?
This goes back to what I said several times last week, we can only
change our side (Apache) but we
Github user dleangen closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/felix/pull/85
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enab
GitHub user tobias-- opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/felix/pull/87
[FELIX-5184] Add alias for Windows Server 2012
default.properties were missing alias for Windows Server 2012.
See [FELIX-5184:](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5184)
You can mer
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15834781#comment-15834781
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FELIX-5184:
---
GitHub user tobias-- opened a pull request:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5483?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15834680#comment-15834680
]
Karl Pauls commented on FELIX-5483:
---
No, that is not the case. If you install a jar that
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5483?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15834530#comment-15834530
]
David Bosschaert commented on FELIX-5483:
-
The patch seems ok to me but AFAIK a bu
Hi all,
I would like to ask someone to review my small patch attached to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5483
Best Regards,
Alexandra
As discussed on legal@ (see [1]), and in order to be able to track code IP
correctly, I propose that all commits that includes API code from the OSGi
Alliance are done in separate commit and include a reference to the public
source where the code comes from.
Thoughts ?
Guillaume
[1]
http://mail-a
14 matches
Mail list logo