commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:23:07 GMT
---- Original Message ----
From: Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com>
> On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
 wrote:
[..]
> > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating
 NOTICE.txt. That is our responsibility here in commons.

> And I reject the attitude to discard a solution *once and forever*,
> simply because there is an aspect in the *current* implementation that
> you dislike.

This is what I also said, and got snipped:
"Whether this affects a particular plugin or not is of non relevance to
 me."

ie. I personally have no idea what the rest of the plugin does, its not of great interest
to me. My point is specific to NOTICE.txt. To a lesser degree it also affects LICENSE.txt,
which should also be in svn IMO.

Stephen


> The value of the mrr plugin (in the light of the Apache policies) is
> that it provides the technical solution for a non-trivial task: To
> ensure that artifacts contain the required files. Having been the
> person who was forced to implement a comparable solution in the past
> for a several projects and for several artifacts separately, I am very
> happy if someone provides a solution that does exactly that and will
> take care for possible other artifacts in the future. The question,
> how and from where the NOTICE.txt file is obtained is a minor problem,
> which can easily be achieved, in the worst case by subclassing the
> plugin. So, what's the reason to be so gruff?







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


Mime
View raw message