Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
Yes, it's called a -deps package, and individuals occasionally produce
them and even redistribute them from our servers (as binaries).
So, to move this discussion forward, do you think it would be
acceptable if
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com
wrote:
Yes, it's called a -deps package, and individuals occasionally produce
them and even redistribute them from our servers (as
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Jukka Zitting
jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
So, to move this discussion forward, do you think it would be
acceptable if ManifoldCF (and any other project with binary
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
Shipping a set of CDDL jars out of some java.net projects that oracle
has all but abandoned is far beyond my imagined threshold of
reasonable on the scale. Do you actually see that differently?
Agreed. These are exactly
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
...It seems like Roy is much more categorical about this. Assuming I
understand his point correctly, *no* binary dependencies are
acceptable within a source tarball.
What I don't quite (yet) understand is how a
I mentioned this in another note but I'll repeat here to use your example.
Where the binaries do live in a Maven repo and are versioned there is less of
an issue and it becomes a convenience. A real challenge is what to do if your
taking a stable copy of a project that doesn't have a
Jukka Zitting wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 14:41:02 +0200:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
Shipping a set of CDDL jars out of some java.net projects that oracle
has all but abandoned is far beyond my imagined threshold of
reasonable on the
Hi,
Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
The LICENSE file includes references to
On Mar 29, 2012, at 15:07 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
...It seems like Roy is much more categorical about this. Assuming I
understand his point correctly, *no* binary dependencies are
acceptable within a source
Le 3/29/12 3:41 PM, Daniel Shahaf a écrit :
Jukka Zitting wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 14:41:02 +0200:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Leo Simonsm...@leosimons.com wrote:
Shipping a set of CDDL jars out of some java.net projects that oracle
has all but abandoned is far beyond my
On 29 March 2012 15:09, Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 15:07 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
...It seems like Roy is much more categorical about this. Assuming I
understand his
On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Fabian Christ wrote:
Hi,
Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
That said, I'm not aware of us actually having such a release out there?
Take such fringe projects like Ant, Tomcat, Lucene and Xalan that have
been shipping releases like throughout the past decade. See examples
dating
Roy,
Of course you, personally, can't be expected to supervise all projects
or fix all documentation. At the same time, there's something a little
depressing about the situation. On the one hand, the principle at work
here is, to paraphrase you, absolutely central to the defined mission
of the
On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Roy,
Of course you, personally, can't be expected to supervise all projects
or fix all documentation. At the same time, there's something a little
depressing about the situation. On the one hand, the principle at work
here is, to
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
Me not happy. This is not any individual's fault, least of all Jukka,
and certainly not a fault of the ManifoldCF podling that is going through
this fun precisely to learn how to create an Apache release. It is an
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[dropped infra@, I believe most interested people are already on
general@]
Let's decouple this thread from the specific issue of the ManifoldCF
release.
(Was: [VOTE] Release
ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[dropped infra@, I believe most interested people are already on
general@]
Let's decouple this thread from
On Mar 28, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
If you want to do it right, build the whole thing from scratch -- nothing
but the source code. If there isn't at least one person (or CI bot)
doing that per project, we're screwed.
I think the problem has gotten more challenging over time
On Mar 27, 2012, at 2:15 AM, sebb wrote:
On 26 March 2012 16:20, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
[dropped infra@, I believe most interested people are already on general@]
Let's decouple this thread from the specific issue of the ManifoldCF
release. There's a long tradition of Apache releases like the ones
ManifoldCF is producing, so turning this suddenly into a blocker is
IMHO bad
On Mar 27, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[dropped infra@, I believe most interested people are already on general@]
Let's decouple this thread from the specific issue of the ManifoldCF
release. There's a long tradition of Apache releases like the ones
ManifoldCF is
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's decouple this thread from the specific issue of the ManifoldCF
release. There's a long tradition of Apache releases like the ones
ManifoldCF is producing, so turning this suddenly into a blocker is
IMHO bad
+1 from me (binding).
Karl
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Shinichiro Abe
shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Incubator IPMC,
Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
You can find the
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Incubator IPMC,
Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
You can find the artifact at
How's this for a diff to address the LICENSE.txt problem:
Index: LICENSE.txt
===
--- LICENSE.txt (revision 1304322)
+++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
@@ -230,15 +230,19 @@
This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar.
License: Dual license
Some comments:
The NOTICEs file does not indicate that there is software from outside the
ASF... for instance, Jetty is a Codehaus project. Same license, different
org. Here is what Geronimo does:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/2.1.4/NOTICE.txt
The code signing Key
Thanks for the review.
Build with maven requires running mvn-bootstrap script first.
Primary build is ant. This is described in the documentation.
License notices have been released 4 previous times in this form and
were based originally on Solr/Lucene, which included many of the same
Withdrawing the release candidate from consideration in order to
address sebb's blocking license/notice issues.
Karl
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Incubator IPMC,
Please vote on
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Shinichiro Abe
shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
+1 to release (checked the -src.tar.gz package with SHA1 checksum
a55cebf7d725f2363ccf40e4f0129b95110fa36d)
As for the issues raised by
Some clarifications:
Hi Roy,
(1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense
anything. No shared release process is involved for any third-party
jar
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
Some clarifications:
Hi Roy,
(1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense
anything. No
We distribute binaries with the source distribution as well.
Otherwise it is not possible to build the source. This too is similar
to Lucene and Solr.
I am curious as to when it became a requirement that source and binary
distributions have independent LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Thanks,
Karl
On
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 18:05:05 +0200:
Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release
third party binaries, period. Hence, the specific examples that
you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE. They might be
valid for the license file included
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release
third party binaries, period. Hence, the specific examples that
you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE. They might be
valid for the license
Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release third party
binaries, period.
Mainifold and other projects package up source AND binaries so I don't think we
can say way don't release binaries. We do. It's more of a convenience. It the
-bin packages emanate from the
Sorry. Meant ASF not ASC. My thumbs are too big for my phone.
My point is that if push came to shove, legally, I think the -bin objects would
be considered a distribution.
Matt Hogstrom
On Mar 26, 2012, at 13:36, Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org wrote:
Second, Apache projects only release
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org wrote:
My point is that if push came to shove, legally, I think the -bin objects
would be considered a distribution.
I disagree. The ASF only releases source.
If I understand correctly, changing that position undermines the
Policy is that binaries are not endorsed by the ASF.
I don't think anyone said anything differently.
There is a huge difference between endorsing a third-party binary and
distributing it. But if I misunderstand and it is Apache's policy
that we don't distribute any third-party binaries then we
Different venue is fine. I was merely observing that we (almost every project)
produces source and binaries distributions from the same pages. Hard to argue
we don't distribute binaries; we do.
Matt Hogstrom
m...@hogstrom.org
A Day Without Nuclear Fusion Is a Day Without Sunshine
On Mar 26,
On 26 March 2012 16:20, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Incubator IPMC,
Please vote on
Hello Incubator IPMC,
Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
You can find the artifact at
http://people.apache.org/~shinichiro/apache-manifoldcf-0.5-incubating-RC0/, or
in svn at
42 matches
Mail list logo
