On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
+1 for release on Ubuntu/x86, FreeBSD 6-STABLE/x86, Darwin/PPC.
Sorry, I think we should re-roll with the reverted copyright
statements. Since the code is the same and no one reported any
technical problems, the new vote should be pretty
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:31:25PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Appears to be Colm's choice of 1. nothing extra, 2. revert date
changes/reroll, or 3. revert date changes (w/ any other changes he
wishes), bump and reroll. That's my preference, in descending order,
but support whichever
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
My preference is similar, I'd prefer to ship 2.0.57 as it is now rather
than either confuse the whole process by introducing another candidate.
So, unless people revert their votes for release, we can release the
present candidate very shortly after 2.2.2.
Something
Passes perl test framework and others on:
Sol8/Sparc, OS X 10.4.6, Suse 9.2, Suse 10.0
+1
On Apr 19, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Plüm, Rüdiger,
Also +1 (compiled and started) on
Solaris 8, gcc 3.3.2
Solaris 9, gcc 3.3.2
Forgot to mention: Both Solaris SPARC
Regards
Rüdiger
Like in 2.0.55 it builds not mod_deflate with zlib 1.2.3 , its complaining
that some files are not found, like srclib\zlib\infblock.h ,
srclib\zlib\infcodes.h, srclib\zlib\infutil.h.
There is a patch for mod_deflate 2.053 at
http://smithii.com/files/httpd-2.0.54_zlib-1.2.2.patch (did not tried
On 4/19/2006 at 10:59:48 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Colm MacCarthaigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting
at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which
is a
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
potential open issue.
I'm -1 due to the copyright
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
potential open
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm -1 due to the copyright notice changes. A bunch of files
magically added years to copyright notices (i.e. from -2004 to -2006)
when those files didn't actually substantively change during that
period. That's a no-no.
We
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Let's just add Jackrabbit's disclaimer and be done with the whole year
thing forever. The best thing of course would be to not have done
anything at all (g); but that train left the station when all of
those commits got made
On 4/21/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We know that now, but those commits went through before it became so
clear that our previous practise was so wrong.
The entire email exchange happened while the US West Coasters were
asleep. I sent an email saying, Don't do that as soon as
On 4/21/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, this is hardly the first time we've done that... Yes, it's
been awhile since we made those unilateral changes, but by the
above standards, what we had even before wasn't really correct,
since those had changed copyrights on files
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
potential open issue.
I'm
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:39:12PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I don't concur with Colm, the tarball is the release and changing the legal
text is more significant, perhaps, than even the code itself. So it's yet
another bump that strikes me as silly.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean it
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It matters that we've now said on a public list that we know the
notices are incorrect. Before, we actually believed that those
changes were right. That's a huge difference. -- justin
You've said so. Roy's said so. Colm said it's irrelevant. I've seen no
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is this a showstopper? As has been pointed out, your comments are late
to the table, and this certainly isn't a change in existing practice, and
most certainly doesn't invalidate the (initial and appropriate) copyrights.
Bah. I
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, this is hardly the first time we've done that... Yes, it's
been awhile since we made those unilateral changes, but by the
above standards, what we had even before wasn't really correct,
since those had
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It matters that we've now said on a public list that we know the
notices are incorrect. Before, we actually believed that those
changes were right. That's a huge difference. -- justin
You've
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
So, I think our real options are;
's/-//' and simply delete the latter year entirely.
This is minimal change, but assumes that I actually have a clue here
and get what the legal issue is. And this hasn't been approved
by ASF
Jim Jagielski wrote:
So does this mean that no ASF project can release any code
until we get this resolved *and* that they all incorporate
those changes to fix the copyright notice changes? I'm not
being a pain, I'm really curious. If so, then that's a major
thing and (1) we better be fully
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really have no problem if Cliff posts to the list telling us It is
not necessary to update copyright dates - and if he does that, we will
revert before rolling 2.2.0.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Migrate to the jackrabbit notice, because at least it has been
approved and we judge the inconvience of seemingly slightly
adversarial to users less bad than the inconvience of having
less credibility in legal matters.
If the
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We can not make statements in the code that we know to be inaccurate.
Once you decided to open this can of worms, we must resolve it before
publishing a release. -- justin
So, basically, we're dead in the water until we develop and
As I read it, yes it appears that even just changing the last
date does not make sense. For example assuming a valid 1999-2004
and the file is updated in 2006, 1999-2006 would not be
correct, if I understand it, but instead 1999-2004,2006
would be more correct... I think :)
In any case, I
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really have no problem if Cliff posts to the list telling us It is
not necessary to update copyright dates - and if he does that, we will
revert before rolling 2.2.0.
Feel free to read the whole thread. It
On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed
should be listed in the copyright.
If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication. ;-)
For reference, here's Larry Rosen's post to legal-discuss@
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are right that we don't update *all* the copyrights, nobody debated that.
We had a simple (too simple) search of touched files to refresh copyright, and
I have no issue if we should undo that and selectively update copyrights on
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:46:21PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
which is all well and good, but doesn't assert copyrights.
And that's fine, there is no need to assert a copyright :)
I'm really completely unclear how this protects the files we author,
the files authored by others (which
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed
should be listed in the copyright.
If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication. ;-)
Yes. What is publication?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are right that we don't update *all* the copyrights, nobody debated that.
We had a simple (too simple) search of touched files to refresh copyright, and
I have no issue if we should undo that and selectively
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
-1 to adopting Jackrabbits' license until Roy's (very reasonable)
nit on the
language is addressed. -1 to removing copyright until we have an
absolute,
documented policy from ASF legal. I'm glad you and Roy feel
entirely assured
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
For the sanity of all the rest of us project members, let us
please work from documented policy though, can we? And feh - let's just
have done with this tarball release and revisit once policy is *set*.
FTR,
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Colm MacCarthaigh
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though,
which is a
potential open issue.
Compiled and
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Colm MacCarthaigh
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though,
which is a
potential open issue.
Also +1
On Apr 19, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which
is a
potential open issue.
Linux sarlacc
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
potential open issue.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
37 matches
Mail list logo
