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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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? 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?<br><br><div
class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 4:52 PM, Kevan Miller
<<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</
a>> 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>
> The .project and .classpath files are used when the plugins are
loaded<br>
> in Eclipse IDE. You are right they don't have
ASL license headers<br>
> but I don't see license headers associated with these files
normally.<br>
> The files in the geronimo eclipse plugin don't have ASL
license<br>
> headers either. 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't really matter... They seem non-trivial to me
and<br>
should have a license header.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
><br>
><br>
> I am not sure what we need to do with jboss here. Of
course we are<br>
> using it since it is a migration tool from jboss to geronimo.
Any<br>
> 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't use "JBoss"
in the name<br>
we're doing this. Internal file names should be fine. So, in
my<br>
opinion, we're ok here...<br>
<br>
So, pending the license header and file permission questions,
I'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--
