Thanks for replying. I did find the old vote threads, the license issue was a question on the copyrights in the NOTICE file, I've had a look and I don't think there's any issue - not all copyrights need to be included its only required third-party notices that are necessary, and they seem ok. So it should be fine to publish those artifacts. I'll wait for a while to see if anyone else comments.
...ant On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:22 AM, David Calavera <[email protected]> wrote: > The artifacts published in January were petty much stable but there was > license issues, some of them were missing. I can't find the thread were we > discussed that right now. Btw, +1 to publish the same artifacts. > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There was a 1.0 release back in January but it doesn't look like the >> release artifacts were ever published in the distribution area or >> maven repository. I know there has since been a suggestion to do a new >> 1.0 to pick up all the latest trunk fixes but as thats taking some >> time how about just publishing the January artifacts now and having >> all the latest trunk code go out in a new release? WDYT? >> >> ...ant >> >
