There's been a discussion on private@ that could have happened here about the principles and practicalities of the commons-csv situation. I'm going to recap from my standpoint, others can then join in.
At some point, a Lucene committer set out to add csv support, and found some suitable unreleased code in commons. Commons wasn't in any hurry to release it, and you wanted to release. I don't want to rehash the particular events that followed, but rather talk about general principles of the thing. An Apache release is a source release. It can have external dependencies. They have to satisfy the license constraints. As best I understand it, there are only two choices consistent with the rules: 1) just leave a hole and tell users that they need to get it for themselves. 2) make a copy of the commons-csv code inside lucene, with Lucene package names, and release it. There has been much discussion of depending on commons-csv binary jar files (with or without package renaming) that don't come from any released version in either project. I might be wrong, but I don't think that this is acceptable in terms of the legal process surrounding an Apache release. Note that I haven't mentioned Maven in here anywhere, because, to the best of my understanding, the situation I'm describing has to be dealt with -- with or without it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
