robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > allow automated downloads by Maven? I have an issue with that,
> > since it could allow people to use the code without knowing
> > that it is in the Incubator, but more to the point, we've had
> > that discussion, and I don't recall the resolution.
> jars are widely distributed these days (through the maven repository and
> elsewhere) so IMHO this is a wider issue than just activeMQ.
Yes, and we've been through this before, but I just don't recall the
previous resolution of the issue, which we should put into the docs.
> the NOTICE file should be included in the jar (as well as the LICENSE).
> perhaps it would be a good idea for all incubator releases to include a
> few words in the NOTICE file indicating that it's an incubator release.
OK, but people never look INTO the jar, so I'm not sure how much that helps.
And we do have standard disclaimer language already, so that's a given.
> i'd probably also favour indicating the status in the name of the jar
> so incubator-xxx-1.0.jar rather than apache-xxx-1.0.jar.
Hiram wrote:
> Even though it's not extremely descriptive, the maven group id that
> activemq is using is incubator-activemq. So most folks who add the
> activemq dependency will realize that it's a dependency that's coming
> from the incubator.
What I SEEM to recall is that we agree that people were not to publish into
one of the public Maven repositories, and that was to be a separate
repository for use with the Incubator, so that users would be required to
knowingly configure that repository in order to use Incubation artifacts.
Hopefully Brett Porter, or perhaps someone from Derby-land, will recall the
discussion and resolution.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
