Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Alexandr, thanks! I’ve merged your changes to the master branch. — Denis > On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Alexander Fedotov > wrote: > > So, I suppose we should revert JSR107 license fixes in LICENSE_FABRIC and > LICENSE_HADOOP too. > Will update PR shortly. > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:41 AM,

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

So, I suppose we should revert JSR107 license fixes in LICENSE_FABRIC and LICENSE_HADOOP too. Will update PR shortly. On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade. > We need to wait until the process fully finishes:

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade. We need to wait until the process fully finishes: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 Considering this let’s merge

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to Maven: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new license. When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Val, cache-api lib license at maven now looks like JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License > https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt and I see replacement at pull-request related to this thread #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Guys, JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all the places: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Anton, Can you please clarify what is the issue? I'm not sure I understand. -Val On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igniters, please advise on it. > > Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version > 2.0 to create

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Igniters, please advise on it. Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter of a build being provi

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Guys, I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 " with "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals. We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :) On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > PR updated > >

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

PR updated On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged. > It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes for > dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled accor

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged. It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes for dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the point 3 in JIRA . I'll fix it and your notes in

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource. However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it contains licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 al

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Alexander, thanks! I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. — Denis > On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov > wrote: > > Hi, > > Created Upsource review for the subject: > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Hi, Created Upsource review for the subject: http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. > Kindly take a look at

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Hi all, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/ ignite/pull/1475 . On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the > follo

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the following at the moment // -- // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this distribution // which licenses differ from Apache Softwar

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Hi, I don't think that we need to do something special, since the license link currently points at the location of the updated license. From my understanding, it should work out of thin air. Regards, Alexander 25 янв. 2017 г. 7:24 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < dsetrak...@apache.org> напи

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. > org/j

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility reasons. However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm not sure that licensing issue still exists. -Val On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been discussed. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNIT

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? — Denis > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wro

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the next release. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guys, > > I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months > ago [1]. However, there was no re

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Guys, I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 still has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to the new one though). Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever geronimo project updates the JAR. D. On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > I tried to switch

Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar

Folks, I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? -Val On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Igniters, > > Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the JSR107? > > > http://mvnre