On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17/04/2009, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> >> And that matches "What is a release?" in the ASF Releases FAQ (although
>> SVN
>> >> its not explicitly mentioned):
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/
El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 16:22 -0700, Upayavira escribió:
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> > > repository is considered as distribution too.
> >
>
org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As far
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 10:18 +1000, Gavin wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Upayavira [mailto:u...@odoko.co.uk]
> > Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 9:23 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second
> -Original Message-
> From: Upayavira [mailto:u...@odoko.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 9:23 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
>
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> > repository is considered as distribution too.
>
> No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is
We got 4 votes, all in favor, and of which 3 are binding.
Ant Elder
Sebb (non-binding)
Niclas Hedhman
Martijn Dashorst
The vote passes. I will copy the artifacts to Pivot's dist area and
update our documentation site to make the download.cgi page live after
the mirrors have picked the artifacts
+1 publish
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
> [x] +1 Publish
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work her
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> Two extracts:
>
> 1) "Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
> group that owns it."
>
> 2 )"All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to
> make changes to the software being released."
>
> Point (2) defin
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
[x] +1 Publish
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
-
On 17/04/2009, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > As far as I
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
>>> >
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
>> > repository is considered as distribution too.
>>
>> No, I am ve
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> > repository is considered as distribution too.
>
> No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> repository is considered as distribution too.
No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is
done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike
rel
On 17/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me.
>
>
> Not to be a pain, but is that a +1? :)
>
+1
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For addi
> 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
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert 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 the tag), which c
>> 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
> 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
Just ones that actually are license incompatible?
> (and copied the branch to the tag)
Yes, thank y
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
the branch to the tag), which can be found at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/
sebb 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 .classpath files may also vary, but are
> less of a
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 we
> 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 fixe
>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 i
On 16/04/2009, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert 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
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert 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 from SVN, that ca
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 from SVN, that can be done after the fact.
-T
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM
> 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.
FYI, I have a question pending to legal-discuss - I'll post the answer
here when I hear back.
-
> 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
> [javac]
>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 o
On 14/04/2009, Todd Volkert 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 requirement in the
> 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 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert 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 .classpath 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
On 16/04/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert 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.
> >
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/i
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert 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.
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/
>
> I plan to copy thi
> 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.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/
I plan to copy this to tags once the release gets approved (since
until th
>One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd
>characters towards the end which don't display well.
Looks like it is encoded in UTF-8 for some reason (the others appear to use
standard ASCII). We can easily change that, if necessary.
-
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
sourc
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 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. S
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 requirement in the BUILD file to be JDK
1.6 (which includes the StAX AP
42 matches
Mail list logo
