Hi,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jukka Zitting [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
A key objection against distribution through the Maven repository has
been that a downstream project should not be able to have an
incubating
Jukka,
Because we (Apache) control the distribution channel?
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Jukka Zitting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jukka Zitting [EMAIL
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because we (Apache) control the distribution channel?
Do you meant that if someone else distributes our releases, then they
don't need to make the end user explicitly aware of the incubation
disclaimers?
BR,
Jukka
Jukka,
Since disclaimers are not part of the Apache License, they are no
obligated to. All we are trying to do here is to not let our folks use
a channel where it's not explicit.
Even if all the other channels strip out all the incubator
disclaimers, there's nothing we can do about it. and is
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since disclaimers are not part of the Apache License, they are no
obligated to. All we are trying to do here is to not let our folks use
a channel where it's not explicit.
Even if all the other channels strip out
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Because we (Apache) control the distribution channel?
Nope. We control several distribution channels; offhand...
www.apache.org/dist/{tlp}/
- ASF-wide policies (TLP 3x +1, more +1 than -1)
www.apache.org/dist/incubator/podling/
- Incubator policies (+
Right, that's why my VOTE was the way it was. Please check my VOTE :)
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Because we (Apache) control the distribution channel?
Nope. We control several distribution channels;
I know...hence my VOTE was what it was.
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Jukka Zitting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since disclaimers are not part of the Apache License, they are no
obligated to. All we are
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know...hence my VOTE was what it was.
So my questions go out to people who opposed the proposed policy change:
1) Is it OK for project A to bundle the incubating dependency?
2) If yes, why should things be more
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Right, that's why my VOTE was the way it was. Please check my VOTE :)
Didn't argue with your vote; argued with your statement/query :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
Bill,
It's an opinion. People are allowed to have them :)
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:38 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Right, that's why my VOTE was the way it was. Please check my VOTE :)
Didn't argue with your vote; argued with your
I'll bite again :)
My earlier reasoning was that for folks who use Ant, there's an
off-chance that they will see the jars and possibly the disclaimers
when they are creating their build or deployment environment.
Maven makes it too easy and hides too much that they will not get a
chance to run
On 27-Sep-08, at 4:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Because we (Apache) control the distribution channel?
Nope. We control several distribution channels; offhand...
www.apache.org/dist/{tlp}/
- ASF-wide policies (TLP 3x +1, more +1 than -1)
Jason van Zyl wrote:
maven repository
- Maven TLP (now that ASF has absorbed Maven server)
The ASF has not absorbed the Maven server.
Color me confused for having approved colocation expenses some
2 meetings back. This did not happen or will not happen?
And since we are paying for it...who (maven pmc?) exactly is tasked
with taking care of it?
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
maven repository
- Maven TLP (now that ASF has absorbed Maven server)
The ASF has
On 27-Sep-08, at 6:13 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
maven repository
- Maven TLP (now that ASF has absorbed Maven server)
The ASF has not absorbed the Maven server.
Color me confused for having approved colocation expenses some
2 meetings back. This did not
Let me explain...Control - Telling folks not to copy artifacts into
m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/ Nothing more, nothing less.
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strike one
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Because we
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
And since we are paying for it...who (maven pmc?) exactly is tasked
with taking care of it?
As Jason (and Paul in a side channel) confirm, ASF is not paying for
it at this point. That was my confusion based on an earlier board
resolution.
Jukka,
I see where you are going with this. But what i cannot for the life of
me understand is why adding a tiny snippet of xml to project B's pom
is so objectionable (adding another repo)? No one has yet answered
that question for me.
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jukka Zitting
Am asking because, the way the situation is being portrayed is that
anyone using maven is totally unable to use the incubator
artifacts...that's wrong.
thanks,
dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jukka,
I see where you are going with this. But what
On 27-Sep-08, at 6:37 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
And since we are paying for it...who (maven pmc?) exactly is tasked
with taking care of it?
I pay for it (which I don't mind, as I consider it part of my
obligation to the Maven user base), and Contegix is responsible for
taking care of
Thanks Jason!! Sorry i had not kept up with the discussion.
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Sep-08, at 6:37 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
And since we are paying for it...who (maven pmc?) exactly is tasked
with taking care of it?
I pay
0) Ant users do go thru extra steps...no? Technical issues is for
Maven folks to address, not our problem. We add extra steps just so
that users know what they are getting to (exactly as intended)
1) Is that a maven limitation? I don't remember running into that.
Either way, it's for maven to fix
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
0) Ant users do go thru extra steps...no? Technical issues is for
Maven folks to address, not our problem. We add extra steps just so
that users know what they are getting to (exactly as intended)
And then you
Jason,
Exactly why in previous discussions i already asked...Can the maven
folks provide another way to do this? (not showing disclaimers
necessarily, something that the user has to do one time works too.
Example: apt-get and keys)
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Exactly why in previous discussions i already asked...Can the maven
folks provide another way to do this? (not showing disclaimers
necessarily, something that the user has to do one time works too.
Example: apt-get and keys)
WHY do you keep conflating the idea of
Fine...Please state your *specific* use case scenario that is
problematic right now
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Exactly why in previous discussions i already asked...Can the maven
folks provide another way to
On 27-Sep-08, at 7:46 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Jason,
Exactly why in previous discussions i already asked...Can the maven
folks provide another way to do this? (not showing disclaimers
necessarily, something that the user has to do one time works too.
Example: apt-get and keys)
We could
Unfortunately a typical response from you. Guess there's no point in
even trying..
-- dims
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Sep-08, at 7:46 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Jason,
Exactly why in previous discussions i already asked...Can the maven
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Fine...Please state your *specific* use case scenario that is
problematic right now
The problem set is that this thread now exceeds 500 posts in four
years, with only one technically appropriate conclusion.
Bill
As Adian is away on vacation I have summarized the thread. Binding votes
marked with '*'.
Here are the +1's across the release so far.
Rajith RC5
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg18855.html
Carl RC5
In total there were 9 +1 votes cast.
7 Binding +1's and 2 non-binding.
Binding votes were:
Alan Cabrera
Bertrand Delacretaz
Matt Hogstrom
Kevan Miller
Matthieu Riou
Craig Russell
Henning Schmiedehausen
Emmanuel Lecharny
Roland Weber
Can the PMC ACK this result and we'll start the next step
Hi Niclas,
On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
As for more documentation; I am -0 on that, but I guess Craig and
Martijn
will probably jump at the opportunity ;o)
Well, thanks but no thanks. ;-)
My views are similar to yours. Diversity is a subjective thing, and
every
I've now reviewed the release, checked signatures and legal stuff on
M3 RC5, and it looks ok. So +1 on the release.
Craig
On Sep 27, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
As Adian is away on vacation I have summarized the thread. Binding
votes marked with '*'.
Here are the +1's across
34 matches
Mail list logo
