Alexander, thanks! I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
— Denis > On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > Created Upsource review for the subject: > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. >> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/i >> gnite/pull/1475 . >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the >>> following at the moment >>> >>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this >>> distribution >>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. >>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> ================== >>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) >>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 >>> ============================================================ >>> ================== >>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: >>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For >>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. >>> >>> >>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira >>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache >>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. >>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for >>> compatibility >>>>> reasons. >>>>> >>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so >>> I'm >>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. >>>>> >>>>> -Val >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been >>>>>> discussed. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to >>> 2.0? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> — >>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the >>>>>> next >>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several >>>>>>> months >>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and >>>>> 1.0.0 >>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing >>>>> to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> new one though). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to >>>>>>> Geronimo? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real >>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 >>> whenever >>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we >>>>> going >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the >>>>>>>>> JSR107? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next >>>>> release, >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Alexander. >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander.
