On 14 September 2013 11:19, Baptiste Mathus <bmat...@batmat.net> wrote: > Le 13 sept. 2013 19:00, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> On 12 September 2013 21:52, Baptiste Mathus <m...@batmat.net> wrote: >> > 2013/9/12 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> > Like we already say I think we aren't convinced about this because it >> >> will >> >> > imply to recopy these files across ~50 projects (plugins, shared > libs) >> >> and >> >> > thus update them the day we'll decide/need to do it. That's why we > always >> >> > prefered to bundle them at build time. >> >> >> >> The point is: >> >> the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. >> >> That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know >> >> the what the license conditions are. >> >> >> > >> > Wasn't it explained that SCM is actually a convenience, and that only > the >> > released source tarballs would actually matter here? >> >> It's not the case that SCM is only a convenience; the SCM locations >> are published to end-users on the web-site and in the POMs. >> >> And the SCM is anyway public. > > Well, according to this thread > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201308.mbox/%3CCA+nPnMwE=ON4AfAmFq3dvnpMdcsKt0u3G=RYvQWiZsmL=ea...@mail.gmail.com%3E
That thread was about including the SCM details in the VOTE e-mail. > and Stephen's answer, that was my understanding and I don't remember > someone pointing to somewhere at apache docs stating this is actually wrong. >> > In this case, Arnaud's point about only adding them at build time is > really >> > valid here. >> >> Not sure what you are referring to here, but the build is not relevant >> to this discussion. > > Once again, in the above linked thread, my readings make me think there > were already answers from pmc that you would then have to "agree to > disagree" on this point. > And this is also the understanding I have from last Arnaud's answer above. There is a thread active currently on legal-discuss; at least one of the ASF legal types thinks that SCM trees should have N&L files. >> >> >> >> The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured >> >> they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the >> >> primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. >> >> >> > >> > In the source, but possibly different in many places and having to > maintain >> > their sameness, that's again Arnaud's point. >> > >> > As an external observer and a developer, not duplicating files in many >> > places as they should really be the same seem quite a sound PMC choice to >> > me. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
