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 [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: inlineWhat happened to this vote? I checked the tags and the code was never movedover. 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: inlineWhat 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--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
