On 29 January 2015 at 01:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> They are not, at least what you noted is not blocking and now clean up for
> futures releases
They are blocking.
And it already is a future release, since this problem was pointed out
in the previous review candidate.
It should have been f
Ok get it, let cancel this vote
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-29 2:26 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> The NOTICE file at
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.0-bet
The NOTICE file at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1/NOTICE.txt
looks wrong just by the fact that it points to another non-existent file:
This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation.
See the LICENSE.xerox file.
There is no LICENSE.
They are not, at least what you noted is not blocking and now clean up for
futures releases
Le 29 janv. 2015 00:45, "sebb" a écrit :
> On 28 January 2015 at 20:46, Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
> > Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
> > to a mac I'm at least twice
On 28 January 2015 at 20:46, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
> to a mac I'm at least twice slower cause of it).
>
> BTW I'll remove aspectj dir on trunk.
>
> About Java 8: while it is javadoc only I think we don't care - in
> particu
Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
to a mac I'm at least twice slower cause of it).
BTW I'll remove aspectj dir on trunk.
About Java 8: while it is javadoc only I think we don't care - in
particular since we can't release building with a java 8 JVM while we
don't
On 28.01.15 20:39, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello Romain,
>
> I've looked at the RC.
>
> - Signs and hashes are good
> - builds find with maven 3.2.5 and Java 6 and 7, although the build of the
> core takes forever... The build fails with Java 8 (I've run mvn clean
> verify). It looks like it's t
On 26.01.15 12:19, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
>
> @Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
I don't even know if it actually works with the current code. It was
like this when I got here (TM). I'd suggest to remove the aspe
Hello Romain,
I've looked at the RC.
- Signs and hashes are good
- builds find with maven 3.2.5 and Java 6 and 7, although the build of the
core takes forever... The build fails with Java 8 (I've run mvn clean
verify). It looks like it's trying to create the JavaDocs but that fails
because of doc
@sebb: I read this doc when you mentionned it previously and
intentionnaly kept it cause it makes things clearer for me and it is
not mandatory to remove it, just better. I thought more code was from
xerox - why I wanted to keep it. Anyway this is not a blocker at all
and we have to fix it, just wa
On 26 January 2015 at 17:38, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Sebb, this is nowhere stated in the bylaws. There is just no ground for
> totally blasting a release!
This has come up several times, and the rules are still at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> It's superfluous and
Sebb, this is nowhere stated in the bylaws. There is just no ground for totally
blasting a release!
It's superfluous and not 100% perfect but it is NOT wrong. The sources
_currenty_ contain this file, so we have it.
For how long is this now in the codebase? 2 years? even longer?
Be glad that Ro
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:48 AM, sebb wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking that is true, but when an issue is found, the RM
> should take any vetos into account.
>
They are NOT vetoes.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.
but this is not a blocker and actually can even be considered right
since optional doesn't mean shouldn't be mentioned (in particular I
think it is better to mention it even if optional to avoid ambiguities
and keep the origin explicit)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
htt
On 26 January 2015 at 16:47, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> 2015-01-26 17:41 GMT+01:00 sebb :
>> On 26 January 2015 at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> wrote:
>>> Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
>>
>> No, it also affects the binary bundle, and it affects the SVN tag
>> (which is also a dist
2015-01-26 17:48 GMT+01:00 sebb :
> On 26 January 2015 at 13:45, James Carman wrote:
>> Release votes cannot be vetoed, so it's just a vote against. If you
>
> The problem here is that there does not appear to be a specific commit
> that can be vetoed which can be said to be the cause of the prob
On 26 January 2015 at 13:45, James Carman wrote:
> Release votes cannot be vetoed, so it's just a vote against. If you
The problem here is that there does not appear to be a specific commit
that can be vetoed which can be said to be the cause of the problem.
> have more +1's than -1's and you h
2015-01-26 17:41 GMT+01:00 sebb :
> On 26 January 2015 at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
>
> No, it also affects the binary bundle, and it affects the SVN tag
> (which is also a distribution, though not a release)
>
Not the bundle since aspectj fil
On 26 January 2015 at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
No, it also affects the binary bundle, and it affects the SVN tag
(which is also a distribution, though not a release)
> Not sure it does need to cancel the vote, this is not a major issue
> IMO
Release votes cannot be vetoed, so it's just a vote against. If you
have more +1's than -1's and you have at least 3 PMC folks saying +1,
then you can release. However, if we do have an opportunity to clean
something up here, we should take it. If we can just remove this file
and move on without
Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
Not sure it does need to cancel the vote, this is not a major issue
IMO and can be fixed for next one
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-26 12:39 GMT+01:0
On 26 January 2015 at 11:30, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> @sebb: not sure I get it right, it references LICENSE.txt correctly for me
Not sure what you mean by "it" above.
As I already wrote:
The NOTICE file should not reference LICENSE.txt
Nor should it reference LICENSE.xerox, because the Xerox
@sebb: not sure I get it right, it references LICENSE.txt correctly for me
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-26 12:27 GMT+01:00 sebb :
> On 26 January 2015 at 11:19, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> if t
On 26 January 2015 at 11:19, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
But it does have some consequences, because of the license issues.
> @Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.to
if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
@Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-26 12:18 GMT+01:00 sebb :
> Why not just drop it e
Why not just drop it entirely?
If that is the only Xerox-licensed file, it is not essential to the
operation of JCS, so why keep it?
On 25 January 2015 at 21:44, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> this is not packaged AFAIK, just here as a sample I guess.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmanni
Hi Mark,
this is not packaged AFAIK, just here as a sample I guess.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-25 22:35 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> is that all?
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/prop
is that all?
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/trunk/commons-jcs-core/src/aspect/org/apache/commons/Trace.aj
Wouldn't it be actually quite easy to replace this?
LieGrue,
strub
> On Sunday, 25 January 2015, 19:30, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> > On 25.01.15 17:00, Romain Manni-
On 25.01.15 17:00, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> It does AFAIK - was not here and just propagated existing legal text - and
> that is why it is referenced in core and not all artifacts.
> Le 25 janv. 2015 16:55, "sebb" a écrit :
The XEROX license relates to the file
/commons-jcs-core/src/aspect/or
gt; >>>>
> >> >>>> mvn site site:stage
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> should generate a complete site with all submodules in
> target/staging/
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Dont forget to enable all profiles.
&g
;
>> >>>> Dont forget to enable all profiles.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Fails with
>> >>>
>> >>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
>> >>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin:3.4:stage (default-cli) o
rofiles.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Fails with
> >>>
> >>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> >>> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin:3.4:stage (default-cli) on
> >>> project commons-jcs: Missing site information in the distribution
>
(org.apache.commons:commons-jcs:2.0-beta-1) -> [Help 1]
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> gruss
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>>>>
>>>> - Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
>>&
in the distribution
>> management of the project Apache Commons JCS
>> (org.apache.commons:commons-jcs:2.0-beta-1) -> [Help 1]
>>
>>
>> >
>> > gruss
>> > Bernd
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>> >
&g
tribution
> management of the project Apache Commons JCS
> (org.apache.commons:commons-jcs:2.0-beta-1) -> [Help 1]
>
>
> >
> > gruss
> > Bernd
> >
> > --
> > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> >
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
>
Bernd
>
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>
> - Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
> Von: "Romain Manni-Bucau"
> Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
> An: "Commons Developers List"
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
>
> Hi
>
> What I
Bucau"
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: "Commons Developers List"
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site folder in a folder named as the module. For instance
http://people.apache.org/~rmannib
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site folder in a folder named as the module. For instance
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1/commons-jcs-jcache/index.html
was in commons-jcs-jcache/target/site/
Not sure it is the right procedure bu
Hello Romain,
what do I have to do to build the module web sites? After mvn site I have a
link "Project Modules" in the navigation, but the links to the module sites
don't work. Can you help?
Benedikt
2015-01-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> Hi
>
> Another try with license/notice files
Hi
Another try with license/notice files
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1074/
- assemblies can be found here
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1074/org/apache/commons/commons-jcs-dist/2.0-beta-1/
- ta
40 matches
Mail list logo
