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.
> >
>
On 18/04/2009, Upayavira wrote:
> 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.
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
> "System Requirement" means that it must be present on the user's
> system before you can build and/or execute the program.
>
> So, the build system should locate the plugin.jar via the JDK location
> and platform it is running, and the runtime should do the same and
> make it part of the classpat
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> This is incredibly frustrating, because 13 days ago, we discussed this JAR
> specifically, and Niclas wrote "Looks to me that it is part of the JDK/JRE,
> and is Ok as system requirement, even if the license is something else." (
> http://tin
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
>>> * Remove plugin.jar from the source distribution since developers that
>>> have the JDK installed already have that JAR anyway -- we'll provide
>>> instructions in BUILD on how to add it to your classpath.
>>
>> As I said on pivot-dev, feel free to pursue whether or not there is a
>> redistribu
> Does Harmony have a plugin.jar?
This one may be good enough to compile against.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5824
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>> wtk/lib/plugin.jar : I don' t see this mention
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>> * Remove plugin.jar from the source distribution since developers that
>>> have the JDK installed already have that JAR anyway -- we'll provide
>>> instructions in BUILD on how to add it to your classpath.
> We'll probably just leave it as
>> * Remove plugin.jar from the source distribution since developers that
>> have the JDK installed already have that JAR anyway -- we'll provide
>> instructions in BUILD on how to add it to your classpath.
>
> As I said on pivot-dev, feel free to pursue whether or not there is a
> redistribution r
Todd Volkert wrote:
> We're going to make the following changes and call for another vote:
> * Remove plugin.jar from the source distribution since developers that
> have the JDK installed already have that JAR anyway -- we'll provide
> instructions in BUILD on how to add it to your classpath.
A
We're going to make the following changes and call for another vote:
* Remove plugin.jar from the source distribution since developers that
have the JDK installed already have that JAR anyway -- we'll provide
instructions in BUILD on how to add it to your classpath.
* Replace the servlet JAR with
Todd Volkert wrote:
web/lib/servlet-api.jar
>>> In the case of this file, the answer seemed to be that there was no
issue
>>> with including it. I interpreted that as not needing anything in the
>>> NOTICE or LICENSE file, but if that's not true, then I'll make changes
>>> as necessary.
>> Fo
I'd like a link to where the license is specified. The one on the
linked page only covers the documentation, not the library.
"A Sun Developer Network Site
Unless otherwise licensed, code in all technical manuals herein
(including articles, FAQs, samples) is provided under this License. "
(text
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> I know I'm not being singled out; it's just very frustrating to go
> through this process on the podling's list, get an OK from both
> mentors, then wait a week for the vote on the public list, only to
> then be to told to change some stuff an
> > > web/lib/servlet-api.jar
>
> > In the case of this file, the answer seemed to be that there was no issue
> > with including it. I interpreted that as not needing anything in the
> > NOTICE or LICENSE file, but if that's not true, then I'll make changes
> > as necessary.
>
> For every artifact
This is incredibly frustrating, because 13 days ago, we discussed this JAR
specifically, and Niclas wrote "Looks to me that it is part of the JDK/JRE,
and is Ok as system requirement, even if the license is something else." (
http://tinyurl.com/cpw8rt). So what's the final word?
-T
On Tue, Apr 1
Todd Volkert wrote:
> > web/lib/servlet-api.jar
> In the case of this file, the answer seemed to be that there was no issue
> with including it. I interpreted that as not needing anything in the
> NOTICE or LICENSE file, but if that's not true, then I'll make changes
> as necessary.
For every a
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>> wtk/lib/plugin.jar : I don' t see this mentioned in notice or license
>>
>> This file is included in the JRE, which we list as a system
>> requirement. We only include it in the sou
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>> wtk/lib/plugin.jar : I don' t see this mentioned in notice or license
>
> This file is included in the JRE, which we list as a system
> requirement. We only include it in the source distribution because
> it's not in the classpath by default
See reply
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Todd,
>
>> can one more PMC member please make sure the release looks ok?
>
> Please reply to Luciano's comments.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe,
PMC Members,
It has been almost a week since we put this release to a vote. We think we've
covered all the bases and would really like to get it out the door. Again, the
release artifacts and RAT report are here:
http://people.apache.org/~tvolkert/pivot/
Please take a few moments to vote on t
> web/lib/servlet-api.jar : It looks like you mention this under your
> notice file but I don' t see details about it's license.
I wasn't sure how to handle our external binary dependencies, so I
asked on our podling's dev@ list (http://tinyurl.com/djr37w). In the
case of this file, the answer se
Todd,
> can one more PMC member please make sure the release looks ok?
Please reply to Luciano's comments.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ge
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
> Apache Pivot 1.1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy and with the endorsement of our mentors, we would now like to
> request the permission of the I
Incubator PMC Members; Please take a look at the Apache Pivot release
candidate, so this very very active and healthy community can get on
with it.
Thanks
Niclas
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
> Apache Piv
Our voting period has expired, and we received three +1 votes, only
two of which are binding. http://tinyurl.com/d9z296 states "Three +1
Incubator PMC votes are required", so can one more PMC member please
make sure the release looks ok?
Thanks,
-T
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Todd Volkert w
Hi Todd,
+1 (non-binding)
Checked the following:
- NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER is in place
- RAT report looks good
- Built with JDK 1.6, Windows XP, Ant 1.7
Looks good to go :)
kind regards
bob
Todd Volkert wrote:
Our voting period expires in less than 24 hours, and our two mentors
hav
Our voting period expires in less than 24 hours, and our two mentors
have voted +1, but we need at least three binding votes. In case this
flew under the radar, can someone else on the Incubator PMC please
take a look to make sure everything's in order?
Thanks,
-T
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
> Apache Pivot 1.1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy and with the endorsement of our mentors, we would now like to
> request the permission of the In
+1. Licensing seems to be in order. Distribution layout looks fine.
Martijn
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
> Apache Pivot 1.1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy and with the endor
The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
Apache Pivot 1.1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
Policy and with the endorsement of our mentors, we would now like to
request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the artifacts
on the Pivot download pa
70 matches
Mail list logo
