jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Parvulescu <alex.parvule...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Date Thu, 03 May 2012 09:33:51 GMT
ah, forgot. I also have to rollback the version from 0.3-SNAPSHOT to
0.2.1-SNAPSHOT that also includes the changes.

alex



On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alex Parvulescu
<alex.parvulescu@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I'd actually prefer to retry the release
> Cool, we can do that.
>
> The simplest way is to also include OAK-82 (this morning's commit) so we
> have a clean trunk for 0.2.1.
>
> What should the release notes say about the licencing issue?
>
> alex
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Michael Dürig <mduerig@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3.5.12 9:08, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>
>>> So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to
>>> minimize
>>> the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
>>>
>>
>> If it is only about the noise I don't mind. I'd actually prefer to retry
>> the release. This will get us going with the process and help us sorting
>> out potential issues with it. If it is a matter of resources and time, I'm
>> fine with skipping it.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> alex
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller<mueller@adobe.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>>  The troublesome files come with the following header:
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
>>>>> * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
>>>>> * (http://h2database.com/html/**license.html<http://h2database.com/html/license.html>
>>>>> ).
>>>>> * Initial Developer: H2 Group
>>>>> */
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
>>>>> could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
>>>>> them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
>>>> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message