geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release J2G 1.0.0 RC1
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:25:36 GMT
Yep, there are a couple questions that Kevan had on 11/12/2007 (license 
headers and assembly file permissions) that need to be addressed. 
Hopefully, I can break away from other work this week and try to look at 
it again....

If you have time to help, that would be great.  I'm using SUSE to build 
the assembly...


-Donald


Erik B. Craig wrote:
> 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