geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik B. Craig" <ecr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
Date Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:28 GMT
It looks like this did indeed fall completely by the wayside. I think  
at the bare minimum we should get a 1.0 release binary put out for this.

Donald, are you still willing to push that? If not, I am willing to  
take that over... can I even do that without being PMC? If I can, I'll  
figure out what needs to be done and such.

Thanks,
Erik B. Craig
ecraig@apache.org


On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Jason Warner wrote:

> ------=_Part_1659_18852684.1204042635536
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> What happened to this vote?  I checked the tags and the code was  
> never moved
> over.  Did this pass?  Do we have an official binary I can link to  
> on the
> wiki docs?
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 4:52 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>
>>> The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are  
>>> loaded
>>> in Eclipse IDE.    You are right they don't have ASL license headers
>>> but I don't see license headers associated with these files  
>>> normally.
>>> The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don't have ASL license
>>> headers either.   Also, these files are not in the assembly.
>>
>> Are these files machine generated? Whether or not they end up in an
>> assembly doesn't really matter... They seem non-trivial to me and
>> should have a license header.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here.   Of course we are
>>> using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo.  Any
>>> advice here?
>>
>>
>> I did a little research for this. It seems we must avoid implying  
>> that
>> JBoss is the source of this code. As long as the distribution name
>> (and executable name, I would think) don't use "JBoss" in the name
>> we're doing this. Internal file names should be fine. So, in my
>> opinion, we're ok here...
>>
>> So, pending the license header and file permission questions, I'd say
>> this looks good.
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> ~Jason Warner
>
> ------=_Part_1659_18852684.1204042635536
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> What happened to this vote?&nbsp; I checked the tags and the code  
> was never moved over.&nbsp; Did this pass?&nbsp; Do we have an  
> official binary I can link to on the wiki docs?<br><br><div  
> class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 4:52 PM, Kevan Miller  
> &lt;<a href="mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com">kevan.miller@gmail.com</ 
> a>&gt; wrote:<br>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid  
> rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:  
> 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Lin Sun wrote:<br>
> <br>
> &gt; The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are  
> loaded<br>
> &gt; in Eclipse IDE. &nbsp; &nbsp;You are right they don&#39;t have 

> ASL license headers<br>
> &gt; but I don&#39;t see license headers associated with these files  
> normally.<br>
> &gt; The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don&#39;t have ASL  
> license<br>
> &gt; headers either. &nbsp; Also, these files are not in the  
> assembly.<br>
> <br>
> </div>Are these files machine generated? Whether or not they end up  
> in an<br>
> assembly doesn&#39;t really matter... They seem non-trivial to me  
> and<br>
> should have a license header.<br>
> <div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. &nbsp; Of  
> course we are<br>
> &gt; using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo.  
> &nbsp;Any<br>
> &gt; advice here?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> </div>I did a little research for this. It seems we must avoid  
> implying that<br>
> JBoss is the source of this code. As long as the distribution name<br>
> (and executable name, I would think) don&#39;t use &quot;JBoss&quot;  
> in the name<br>
> we&#39;re doing this. Internal file names should be fine. So, in  
> my<br>
> opinion, we&#39;re ok here...<br>
> <br>
> So, pending the license header and file permission questions,  
> I&#39;d say<br>
> this looks good.<br>
> <font color="#888888"><br>
> --kevan<br>
> <br>
> </font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>--
<br>~Jason Warner
>
> ------=_Part_1659_18852684.1204042635536--


Mime
View raw message