On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have from now to Octorber to either: > > 1. Implement test requirement to graduate vfs-cifs out of sandbox at > Apache common > > 2. Release it as a alpha/beta at Codehaus together with vfs-maven-plugin > > 3. Release to our internal repo. > > The prefer one is 1 >
So do I :) > > What is VFS 2.1 schedule? > I would like to push out a 2.1 sooner rather than later. I still see some internal clean ups I'd like to do. So it might be out in a month or two. Or not, it depends on my schedule, priorities and feedback I get once I start cutting release candidates. It's possible that by October, VFS will be on 2.2, 2.3 or greater. Gary > Thanks > > -Dan > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dan? What are your plans or intentions here? > > > > Thank you, > > Gary > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:11, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, sebb wrote: > >> > > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Can the above be read as follows for VFS and JCIFS: you cannot > copy > >> the > >> >>>>> JCIFS jar into VFS (which we do not) but the VFS POM can point to > it > >> (which > >> >>>>> we do). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The above document is only proposed, not actual policy. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The following is the resolved list of questions: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > >> >>>> > >> >>>> In particular: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional > >> >>>> > >> >>>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding > the > >> >>>> optional components? > >> >>> > >> >>> I do not see how this helps. It's yes or no: Can the VFS POM point > to > >> >>> a set of artifacts that are LGPL? > >> >> > >> >> Whether the answer is yes or no depends on the answer to the above > >> question. > >> > > >> > There are only a few file systems in VFS that should be considered > >> required. All the ones that require the user to include a third-party > jar - > >> even if it is Jackrabbit's - are optional. We could easily include file > >> systems that have dependencies on artifacts that are licensed under the > >> LGPL or similar licenses (although I would still shy away from GPL'd > works > >> because of the FSF's interpretation of their license). > >> > > >> > The biggest issue I see with the stuff in the sandbox isn't licensing > >> but if anyone will support it. > >> > >> Ok, so the short answer is yes, we can move to trunk. The issue is > >> whether someone can bring the code up to par. That person sounds like > >> the author of the original post. After that, it's up to the > >> committers, like me, to keep up. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> > > >> > Ralph > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
