commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Morgan Delagrange" <mdela...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [Collections] [Vote] Release Collections 2.0 redux
Date Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:18:36 GMT
OK, I'll perform another release build tomorrow and call another vote the
day after.  I'd like to point out, though, that the current BeanUtils and
Digester releases follow this same format (no license in either the src
build or the release jar), while the current Logging release has the license
in the JAR but not in the source.  I'm not really clear why the license is
strictly necessary for the "src" build, since it is at the top of all the
source files.

- Morgan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Cooper" <martin.cooper@tumbleweed.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>;
"Morgan Delagrange" <morgand@apache.org>; "Michael A. Smith"
<mas@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Collections] [Vote] Release Collections 2.0 redux


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Morgan Delagrange" <mdelagra@yahoo.com>
> To: "Michael A. Smith" <mas@apache.org>; "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>; "Morgan Delagrange" <morgand@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Collections] [Vote] Release Collections 2.0 redux
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael A. Smith" <mas@apache.org>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>;
> > "Morgan Delagrange" <morgand@apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Collections] [Vote] Release Collections 2.0 redux
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> > > > I'd like to release Collections 2.0 now.  Any takers?  The release
> > package
> > > > is here:
> > >
> > > There doesn't seem to be a copy of the LICENSE in the source
> distribution
> > > (there is in the binary dist).  Should there be?
> >
> > That's a good point.  The current directions for preparing source
> > distributions don't capture the LICENSE file, I think.  The current
> > directions don't capture anything below the component directory.  (The
> last
> > Collections release didn't have the license either.)
> >
> > I agree that including the LICENSE is a good idea.
> >
> > > Also, in the commons-collections.jar file, the LICENSE is not included
> in
> > > the META-INF directory.
> >
> > Also a good point.
> >
> > > I seem to remember some talk on this list that
> > > the binary jar should include the LICENSE as well.
> >
> > Too bad the discussor(s) didn't update the build script.  :)
> >
> > Hmm, I'm tempted to add the LICENSE manually, but I don't want to
> > contaminate the package with my targz ineptitude.  Maybe we should just
> put
> > inclusion of the LICENSE file on our post-mortem to-do list for the next
> > release.
>
> PMFJI, but it seems to me that including the ASF license in all the right
> places is a really important issue. I think that's something that needs to
> be fixed before the release can be considered valid.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> >
> > - Morgan
> >




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message