On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
* IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively admitting
a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with regard to
whether the aggregate community situation would meet volume +
Can a few PMC members please check this out to see if I resolved all the issues?
Thanks,
-T
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
Incubator PMC members:
I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have
re-rolled the distribution archives
What's the SVN tag for the release?
It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check
if there are any missing or extraneous files.
It's also useful to compare the tar and zip versions of the archives -
it's not unknown for these to be different (ignoring differences in
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
From: Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org
Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:47 AM
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM,
Matt Benson
On 16/04/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the SVN tag for the release?
It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check
if there are any missing or extraneous files.
The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are
Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to
vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted
from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are
less of a problem.
We can
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are
Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to
vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted
from SVN. The .project and
As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
repository is considered as distribution too.
Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss.
Yep - I was just subscribing to legal-discuss right now to get an
official answer :)
On 14/04/2009, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
Incubator PMC members:
I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have
re-rolled the distribution archives with the fixes. Specifically,
here's what changed since the last vote:
* Changed the JDK 1.5 system
I've just tried a build on Win/XP, Java 1.6.0.
This reports quite a few compilation warnings, for example:
[javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:34:
warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
...
Does Pivot only
On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote:
On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote:
Thank you very much for your very prompt review.
Answers to your questions below.
Shanti
sebb wrote:
The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file.
This is very confusing;
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't
have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged
(pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove
that stuff
On 16/04/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't
have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged
(pending the vote), and
There are rules as to what 3rd party dependencies are allowed.
For example, LGPL dependencies cannot be included in distributions;
furthermore, any such dependencies must be optional. That is not
something that can be fixed later.
We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in
We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for some
demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts.
Or dependencies of any kind, for that mater. The actual *release* is
compliant with ASF's policies. If our SVN repository is not, that
will be fixed
Matt Benson wrote:
I'll apologize in advance because I will probably sound like a total dick
in this email being
that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the moment.
LOL Sorry to hear it, but I must have missed the part where you were so
acting.
let it now be known that Commons will not
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
Subject: RE: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
Matt Benson wrote:
I'll apologize in advance
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200904.mbox/browser
Summary:
(a) Some consider SVN to be part of your distribution, and some don't,
so there's no true resolution there
(b) Per http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator,
this weighs on us less because
p.s. on the trunk, we've just migrated the demos sub-project and the
JFreeChart provider off of the ASF repository for good
Were they license incompatible? I'd really like to have demos at the ASF,
not just the core code. But they should be demos that the project is
willing to maintain.
The
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert tvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and
just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF
policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag (and copied
s/tag/branch/ ?
the branch to
AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me.
Not to be a pain, but is that a +1? :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
If, hypothetically, a project was considering entering the incubator,
and if that project had an -extras repository for community-developed
plugins to the project, and if some of those plugins were under non-
ASL licenses, what would be the policy? Could there be an -extras
repository
Rich Bowen wrote:
If, hypothetically, a project was considering entering the incubator,
and if that project had an -extras repository for community-developed
plugins to the project, and if some of those plugins were under non-
ASL licenses, what would be the policy?
Are they compatible or
23 matches
Mail list logo
