On 07/06/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 19:13 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > > s/branch/tag/g surely?
> >
> > Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are
>
> No, CVS tag = SV
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 19:13 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > > s/branch/tag/g surely?
> >
> > Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are
>
> No, CVS tag = SVN tag
No. SVN tag == SVN branch == shallow directory copy.
The
This is my personal model for this stuff. YMMV
trunk ---+ main development ---
|
release branch branches/JCS_1_3
|
+ --- tag tags/JCS_1_3_RC1
|
+ --- tag tags/JCS_1_3_RC2
Hi Sebastian,
> So a release can be developed in a branch or the trunk; before the
> release is finally built the current files should be copied to a
> subdirectory of tags.
>
> The tags subdirectory should not be updated once created.
The branch was the correct term. You copy trunk into a branc
On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> s/branch/tag/g surely?
Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are
No, CVS tag = SVN tag
not trunk and from which you can get a named historic version
(=revision?) of what used to be in trunk :-)
In SVN, ther
sebb wrote:
> s/branch/tag/g surely?
Eh... CVS tag = SVN branch? Whatever, the things that are
not trunk and from which you can get a named historic version
(=revision?) of what used to be in trunk :-)
It's called "level" in CMVC, and I just don't want to spend
my time on learning a separate voc
On 06/06/07, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
>> If you changed the release files manually, you
>> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to
>> change his vote.
>
> We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on
> SVN. This is at
Hi Thomas,
>> If you changed the release files manually, you
>> should commit those changes to SVN and give Sebastian some time to
>> change his vote.
>
> We were voting on the artifacts on people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/, not on
> SVN. This is at least what I understood the release-then-vote-policy
>
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Voting has closed. Here are the results:
>
> +1 votes:
> Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Aaron Smuts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Rony G. Flatscher <[EMAIL PR
On 05/06/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as "acceptable" so that we can understand what you want to have?
Thanks
Henning
I thought I already had done so:
On 27/05/07, se
Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as "acceptable" so that we can understand what you want to have?
Thanks
Henning
sebb schrieb:
> On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > Sorry for the delay i
On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
> so I am withdrawing my -1.
>
> When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
> changes if ne
sebb wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
> so I am withdrawing my -1.
>
> When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
> changes if necessary.
>
> Sebastian
Thanks, I will clarify the res
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> If you vote again your vote is binding too :)
Next time. Thanks again for voting me in.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Hi
sebb wrote:
> However:
>
> http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> says much the same, and seems to be policy.
As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
your concerns have been addressed
If you vote again your vote is binding too :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> sebb wrote:
>> However:
>>
>> http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>>
>> says much the same, and seems to be policy.
>
> As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
Hi Sebastian,
sebb wrote:
> However:
>
> http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
>
> says much the same, and seems to be policy.
As you can see from the SVN tag JCS_1_3 and the artifacts at my site,
your concerns have been addressed and the license files have been fixed.
I would like to ask y
On 6/3/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed. though that page probably needs a bit of a reality check.. The problem
is when someone does
a -1 with reasoning, people tend to stop voting until that vote is switched to
a +1 and if that vote
is switched to a +1 and there are en
Agreed. though that page probably needs a bit of a reality check.. The problem
is when someone does
a -1 with reasoning, people tend to stop voting until that vote is switched to
a +1 and if that vote
is switched to a +1 and there are enough votes, people that stopped voting will
keep silent.
H
Martin,
Actually, that's not true. Releases cannot be vetoed by a -1. See
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
If there's a majority approval and at least 3 +1 PMC votes, than it's up to
the release manager to decide whether or not to release. He can decide to
table the vote based on
Rony is a PMC member.. However the -1 of Sebb (which is binding and blocking)
is still there (unless
I missed his +1)..
Added Rony to the jakarta-pmc authorization file (thanx for spotting this)..
Mvgr,
Martin
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Hi Roland,
>
> Roland Weber wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>>> I cou
Hi Roland,
Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a
>> member of the PMC
>
> In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt
> which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-)
> the authorit
Hi Thomas,
> I could not find any information about whether Rony Flatscher is a
> member of the PMC
In the committers-only SVN module is a file board/committee-info.txt
which lists the PMCs of all Apache projects. It's (supposed to be ;-)
the authoritative source. Rony Flatscher is listed there a
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?
>
> [ ] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
> [ ] 0 I do not care
> [ ] -1 No (give reasons)
Voting has closed. Here are the results:
+1 votes:
Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Henning
+1
---rony
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you BTW also remove the empty from the
Maven 1 POM. This is what stops maven 1.1 beta 3 from building the
distribution.
Good work, folks. +1
Best regards
Henning
Scott Eade schrieb:
> Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>> Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, it's more than t
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.
Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
the distribution.
The maven2 pom is what I was holding ou
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Actually, it's more than that. But so be it. I will update the files on
> my site and kindly ask for a re-vote.
Done. I chose the separate LICENSE file. The maven2-POM is also part of
the distribution.
Bye, Thomas.
On 30/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep, I know this.
Status
Version: 0.52
Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
==> non binding.
However:
http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
says much the same, and seems to be policy.
Yep, I know this.
Status
Version: 0.52
Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
==> non binding.
If it were in effect, then yes, the paragraph
--- cut ---
* Reciprocity
Required by some Components: Some included third-party works are
licensed under terms that require distribution of
On 5/30/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
> The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited httpd project)
to that?
Best regards
H
On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
> I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
> the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introd
sebb wrote:
> The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
> I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
> the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction.
The LICENSE.txt file is supposed to contain the A
On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
> whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
>
> I think it's therefore important to fix this.
From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My prop
sebb wrote:
> I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
> whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
>
> I think it's therefore important to fix this.
>From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal to solve
this is the following:
---8<---
Apache J
On 29/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
uhm, this is as ambiguous as before. Do you consider third-party license
a notice (the foo library is distributed under the foo license as shown
here) or a license in its own right and you would put in into LICENSE.
According to
Hi,
uhm, this is as ambiguous as before. Do you consider third-party license
a notice (the foo library is distributed under the foo license as shown
here) or a license in its own right and you would put in into LICENSE.
According to http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new, the LICENSE
file i
Full license text should go in LICENSE and attributions and notices in NOTICE..
Mvgr,
Martin
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
> projects) did this too:
>
> - LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed
Well, I understand it differently and Thomas (probably looking at other
projects) did this too:
- LICENSE.txt contains the terms under which the software is licensed.
This is Apache License 2.0
- NOTICE contains attributions to included code and the licenses that
it is included under. Some p
On 5/27/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
> LICENSE.txt.
>
> Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
> got licensed to us is in
On 27/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
LICENSE.txt.
Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
Are you sure?
That does not seem to agree
The license under which the code gets licensed to our end users is in
LICENSE.txt.
Copyright notices and optional third-party licenses under which the code
got licensed to us is in NOTICE.
Thomas did the right thing.
Best regards
Henning
sebb schrieb:
> On 27/05/07, Tho
On 27/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.
It doesn't. It contains what I understand as "license header" of that
one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.
Sorry to keep going on about this
All I have is the minor nit that a default target is missing and an
empty aspectSourceDirectory which prevents using maven 1.1 for building.
+1 for the release! Thanks to all who participated!
Best regards
Henning
Thomas Vandahl schrieb:
> Hi folks,
>
> After much discus
sebb wrote:
> I don't think so. The NOTICE is not supposed to contain the license.
It doesn't. It contains what I understand as "license header" of that
one Xerox file and the associated copyright notice.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To unsu
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> Sorry, but: -1
>
> There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
>
> No KEYS file to check the signatures - and coul
sebb wrote:
> Sorry, but: -1
>
> There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
>
> No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
>
> Sourcefiles:
> There should
On 26/05/07, Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
>> Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
>> contributor status.
>
> But you _are_ s
sebb wrote:
> But you _are_ still a committer...
Yes, but then, everybody else in Jakarta is also potentially a committer
for JCS and we would not want to list them all.
By, Thomas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
F
sebb wrote:
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> Project Team: both tv and jvanzyl are committers
Actually my contributions are very small, so I'm fine with the
contributor status.
But you _are_ still a committer...
Surely it is up to Thomas to decide how he wa
On 26/05/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> Sorry, but: -1
>
> There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
>
> No KEYS file to check the signatures - and coul
sebb wrote:
> Sorry, but: -1
>
> There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
> The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
> jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
>
> No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
>
> Sourcefiles:
> There should
Sorry, but: -1
There should be NOTICE files in all the archives (jar, zip etc).
The NOTICE file (found in SVN) needs to refer to Xerox - see
jcs-1.3\src\aspect\Trace.aj
No KEYS file to check the signatures - and could not find it in SVN.
Sourcefiles:
There should probably be AL2.0 headers in th
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Now, shall we release JCS as it is published there?
>
> [X] +1 Yes, JCS 1.3 should be released
> [ ] 0 I do not care
> [ ] -1 No (give reasons)
Bye, Thomas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
F
Hi folks,
After much discussion on the JCS developer list, the first official
release of JCS (version 1.3) after leaving the Turbine project is ready
to vote on.
You can find the created artifacts here:
site: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/
jars: http://people.apache.org/~tv/jcs/jar/
dist: http
56 matches
Mail list logo