On 4 November 2011 13:41, Alexander Kurtakov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15:35:35 Friday 04 November 2011 Jesse McConnell wrote: >> Perhaps they don't have to make a formal eclipse release, but so long >> as they have parallel ip in place they should be able make a milestone >> or release candidate release. The formal eclipse 'release' isn't what >> we in maven lands consider a release really, they consider a release >> something that can be 'conditioned' with their pack process and signed >> by the official eclipse key, etc. It also has to have had release >> docuware created, a static iplog (which is the hold up here) and then >> gone though the release review process (which is generally a couple of >> weeks after its been called for). >> >> I suspect they should be able to make an RC that you could put into >> central and release maven against though...it would just have to >> contain something like 1.0.0.RC0 as the version to adhere to the >> spirit of the law. We release jetty rc's into maven central before >> formal 'release' and in some cases its actually encouraged as they >> look for published milestone or rc releases during the release review >> process as a gauge of release maturity (at least I think that is it, >> its been mentioned a couple of times in the last few years) > > Well, Probably I misunderstand the discussion but IIRC there was a vote that > decided that Aether and Sisu will be fine once there is an Eclipse.org > release. > There might really be such difference in what everyone understand as a release > but an unofficial release on maven central won't be any different than the > latest > sonatype releases on maven central.
Actually, I think as long as the release is pushed to central via the approved route for artifacts belonging to groupId org.eclipse.*, is signed by at least one of the eclipse committers of the project and as long as the source for that release is in the eclipse.org SCM, then I personally see that as being fine. The source was only loaded into the eclipse SCM 9 days ago... and I only saw that today... > > Alex > >> >> cheers, >> jesse >> >> -- >> jesse mcconnell >> [email protected] >> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 06:37, Alexander Kurtakov <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > On 13:30:12 Friday 04 November 2011 Stephen Connolly wrote: >> >> On 4 November 2011 11:04, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > If its stuck at the bottom of the pile for an unknown amount of time - >> >> > I'd REALLY love to see 3.0.4. ship out with the current non-eclipse >> >> > Aether. >> >> > >> >> > Leaving a broken Maven out in the wild for what appears to be politics >> >> > more than anything just continues to hurt the Maven name. >> >> > >> >> > I was under the impression that the "move to Eclipse" was only going >> >> > to take 2-3 weeks, whats it been now - 2-3 months almost? >> >> >> >> This is what we were lead to believe, i.e. that it would be released @ >> >> eclipse within a couple of weeks.... >> >> >> >> If it really is going to take much longer then all somebody needs to >> >> do is propose a vote to release with the new one, and then the PMC can >> >> decide on that vote... at the time of the last vote we were told it >> >> would be at eclipse soon... not that a first release from eclipse >> >> would be a long time away... >> > >> > I doubt that someone can promise a date. Eclipse releases can happen >> > only after IP clearance is finished and if issues are identified moving >> > to new dependencies or new versions with fixed legal issues might be >> > needed and this might need some effort in different upstreams. One can >> > argue whether such deep reviews should be performed but this seems to be >> > the only way to be at least partly sure that you don't have any obvious >> > legal issues. With my Fedora hat on I can ensure you that we have >> > identified tons of issues during the Package review process. >> > >> > Alexander Kurtakov >> > >> >> So if there is a committer willing to step up and ask to use the newer >> >> dependency... please do >> >> >> >> -Stephen >> >> >> >> > Mark >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > "Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven >> >> > Wilson, Porcupine Tree >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Benjamin Bentmann < >> >> > >> >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Looking at Eclipse' IPZilla, which btw is accessible to any Eclipse >> >> >> committer, I see currently around 180 open CQs that the IP team needs >> >> >> to deal with, Aether just being one among many projects. >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
