Hi Haleh,
comments inline ...
On 13/04/07, haleh mahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kelvin,
I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes
- ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used
Haleh,
thanks for this, It would appear that the documentation was wrong in M2
too. I'll fix this.
Regards, Kelvin.
On 13/04/07, haleh mahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
Thank you for your feedback on RC2. I have created a new release candidate
on the basis of the comments I have received. I'll close this vote and see
how we get on with this next RC before starting another vote.
RC3 is at http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC3/
the tag, rat
I've a had a look and have some comments and questions.
- The samples distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE files
- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
there in sdo-api directory)
- The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include a
non-ASF
More comments inline...
On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
there in sdo-api directory)
this is the anomaly that I pointed out in the last release cycle in
response to the requirement that each
responses inline ...
On 12/04/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More comments inline...
On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
there in sdo-api directory)
this is the anomaly that I
Re the api files' headers. I have retraced my steps and found the following
Treatment of Third-Party Works
1. The term third-party work refers to a work not submitted directly
to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
2. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or
Yes, I think that it probably is technically alright to include third-party
code with that license as source code in our SVN, so i guess this isn't a
release blocker. But if feels quite odd to me have the entire Tuscany SDO
API code like this, why couldn't this be the same as our SCA APIs where
Ant,
here's a bit more context, since you asked about whether there had been
discussion of this topic ...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Cheers, Kelvin.
On 12/04/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More comments inline...
On
Hi Kelvin,
I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes
- ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the 2.0.1interfaces.
Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...
-
Please vote to release the M3 distribution of Tuscany SDO for Java
The release candidate RC2 for Tuscany Java SDO is posted here
http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC2/
http://people.apache.org/%7Ekelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC2/The release
audit tool (rat) files and
11 matches
Mail list logo
