On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively admitting
> a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with regard to
> whether the aggregate community situation would meet volume + diversity
> requirements
Can a few PMC members please check this out to see if I resolved all the issues?
Thanks,
-T
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Incubator PMC members:
>
> I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have
> re-rolled the distribution archives with the fixes. S
What's the SVN tag for the release?
It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check
if there are any missing or extraneous files.
It's also useful to compare the tar and zip versions of the archives -
it's not unknown for these to be different (ignoring differences in
sourc
>One minor problem I noticed: the LICENSE file contains some odd
>characters towards the end which don't display well.
Looks like it is encoded in UTF-8 for some reason (the others appear to use
standard ASCII). We can easily change that, if necessary.
-
> What's the SVN tag for the release?
>
> It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check
> if there are any missing or extraneous files.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/
I plan to copy this to tags once the release gets approved (since
until th
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > What's the SVN tag for the release?
> >
> > It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check
> > if there are any missing or extraneous files.
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/
>
> I plan to copy thi
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> From: Niclas Hedhman
> Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:47 AM
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM,
> Matt Benson
> wrote:
>
> > * IPMC informal
On 16/04/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
> > > What's the SVN tag for the release?
> > >
> > > It's useful to be able to compare the source archive with SVN to check
> > > if there are any missing or extraneous files.
> >
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/i
> The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are
> Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to
> vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted
> from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are
> less of a problem.
We
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are
> > Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to
> > vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted
> > from SVN. The .project and .classpath files
> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> repository is considered as distribution too.
>
> Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss.
Yep - I was just subscribing to legal-discuss right now to get an
official answer :)
--
On 14/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Incubator PMC members:
>
> I've addressed the concerns brought up in the first vote and have
> re-rolled the distribution archives with the fixes. Specifically,
> here's what changed since the last vote:
>
> * Changed the JDK 1.5 system requirement in the
>I've just tried a build on Win/XP, Java 1.6.0.
>
>This reports quite a few compilation warnings, for example:
>
>[javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:34:
>warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
> is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
...
>Does Pivot o
> I've just tried a build on Win/XP, Java 1.6.0.
>
> This reports quite a few compilation warnings, for example:
>
> [javac] wtk\src\pivot\wtk\content\TreeViewFileRenderer.java:34:
> warning: sun.awt.shell.ShellFolder
> is Sun proprietary API and may be removed in a future release
> [javac]
> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> repository is considered as distribution too.
>
> Please check this, e.g. on legal-discuss.
FYI, I have a question pending to legal-discuss - I'll post the answer
here when I hear back.
-
Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't
have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged
(pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove
that stuff from SVN, that can be done after the fact.
-T
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM
On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote:
On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
Thank you very much for your very prompt review.
Answers to your questions below.
Shanti
sebb wrote:
The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file.
This is very confusing; one of the jars should be r
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't
> have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged
> (pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove
> that stuff from SVN, that ca
On 16/04/2009, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
> > Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't
> > have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged
> > (pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we
>There are rules as to what 3rd party dependencies are allowed.
>
>For example, LGPL dependencies cannot be included in distributions;
>furthermore, any such dependencies must be optional. That is not
>something that can be fixed later.
We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only i
> We don't have any LGPL libraries in the distribution - only in SVN, for some
> demos that aren't actually included in the distribution artifacts.
Or dependencies of any kind, for that mater. The actual *release* is
compliant with ASF's policies. If our SVN repository is not, that
will be fixe
Matt Benson wrote:
> I'll apologize in advance because I will probably sound like a total dick
in this email being
> that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the moment.
LOL Sorry to hear it, but I must have missed the part where you were so
acting.
> let it now be known that Commons will not
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> Subject: RE: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
> > I'll apologize in advance because I will probably
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200904.mbox/browser
Summary:
(a) Some consider SVN to be part of your distribution, and some don't,
so there's no true resolution there
(b) Per http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator,
this weighs on us less because we
sebb wrote:
> The SVN branch contains lots of .settings directories which are
> Eclipse-specific; these aren't normally added to SVN as they tend to
> vary between Eclipse installations. I think they should be deleted
> from SVN. The .project and .classpath files may also vary, but are
> less of a
Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and
just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF
policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag (and copied
the branch to the tag), which can be found at:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/
> Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and
> just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF
> policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag
Just ones that actually are license incompatible?
> (and copied the branch to the tag)
Yes, thank y
>> p.s. on the trunk, we've just migrated the demos sub-project and the
>> JFreeChart provider off of the ASF repository for good
>
>Were they license incompatible? I'd really like to have demos at the ASF,
>not just the core code. But they should be demos that the project is
>willing to maintain
On 16/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Ok, per the recommendations on the legal-discuss thread and here (and
> just to make sure we're fully in keeping with the spirit of ASF
> policies), I've removed the offending files from the tag (and copied
s/tag/branch/ ?
> the branch to the tag), which c
> AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me.
Not to be a pain, but is that a +1? :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On 17/04/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > AFAICS the archives look OK, so no objections from me.
>
>
> Not to be a pain, but is that a +1? :)
>
+1
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For addi
If, hypothetically, a project was considering entering the incubator,
and if that project had an -extras repository for community-developed
plugins to the project, and if some of those plugins were under non-
ASL licenses, what would be the policy? Could there be an -extras
repository contai
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 20:13 -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> If, hypothetically, a project was considering entering the incubator,
> and if that project had an -extras repository for community-developed
> plugins to the project, and if some of those plugins were under non-
> ASL licenses, what would
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb wrote:
> As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> repository is considered as distribution too.
No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is
done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike
rel
Rich Bowen wrote:
> If, hypothetically, a project was considering entering the incubator,
> and if that project had an -extras repository for community-developed
> plugins to the project, and if some of those plugins were under non-
> ASL licenses, what would be the policy?
Are they compatible or
35 matches
Mail list logo
