Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:54:43 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/build jlibtool.c
Message-ID: <546C92F940A72D0D0B4E186E@[10.0.1.29]>
In-Reply-To: <98D3547E-C9D0-11D8-A8DB-000393753936@gbiv.com>
References: <98D3547E-C9D0-11D8-A8DB-000393753936@gbiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:31 PM +0200 "Roy T. Fielding" 
<fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> Hello?  What makes you think you can do that?  Aside from having the
> wrong license, you don't have the right to commit Justin's code unless
> he tells you to do so on the public mailing list.  You should ask him
> to do the commit himself, since that makes it a donation by the author
> rather than a copy by someone else.
>
> -1 to that commit.  +1 to Justin fixing the license and committing
> the code.

Wow.  Yah.  Why did this get committed?  And why now?  Was there a particular 
reason that you wanted this?  I'm fairly sure that there wasn't a discussion 
about this on dev@apr.  So where did this review happen?  *scratches head*

I'm not totally against relicensing and committing it, but especially so close 
to APR 1.0, I'd at least like to know why now.  I believe in the past the 
feeling was that jlibtool should not be in the tree - Jeff and several others 
have their own libtool replacements, so, at the last ApacheCon, we had 
discussed taking a real effort and support all of them.  *shrug*  -- justin