components dependencies

2010-04-05 Thread Rick McGuire
This is sort of related to the earlier email I sent out about the snapshot dependencies. In looking at the dependencies of the subprojects in the geronimo components tree, I find what appear to be a few problems we should probably correct: geronimo-schema-javaee_6: This is ok as it stands,

Re: components dependencies

2010-04-05 Thread Ivan
For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned it in the past, and Donald gave me some suggestions to refer to the OpenJPA project. I do

Re: components dependencies

2010-04-05 Thread Kevan Miller
On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Ivan wrote: For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned it in the past, and Donald gave me some

Re: components dependencies

2010-04-05 Thread Ivan
Thanks, Kevan. I am afraid that we may still need to release an OSGI style 1.4 and 1.5 for Geronimo 3.0. 2010/4/5 Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Ivan wrote: For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could double-check the descriptions

Re: components dependencies

2010-04-05 Thread Rick McGuire
On 4/5/2010 10:02 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Ivan wrote: For geronimo-schema-java1.4 and java 5 schemas, I wish somebody could double-check the descriptions in the license and notice files in the geronimo-schema-javaee_6 before moving them out. I have mentioned

Re: components dependencies

2010-04-05 Thread David Jencks
On Apr 5, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: This is sort of related to the earlier email I sent out about the snapshot dependencies. In looking at the dependencies of the subprojects in the geronimo components tree, I find what appear to be a few problems we should probably correct: