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 seb...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
repository is considered as distribution too.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
repository is
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as
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
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com 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
-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 Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07
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 try)
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800
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 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 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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
