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 i
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
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 ha
+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
Arnau
[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
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 abo
-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 wou
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 pr
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 e
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...
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
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 bac
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
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 Cate
-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 w
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
-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
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
> T
-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 easie
-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 appro
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:
-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 Margu
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, Jul
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] inco
24 matches
Mail list logo
