Then again depending on the code released outside of the incubator might be best.
Alex On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Niklas Gustavsson < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >> * JSecurity integration - throw out our own security stuff and use >> >> JSecurity instead. Work on this has already started >> > >> > I'd check and see if there are issues with having dependencies on >> incubating >> > project artifacts. I don't think there is but sometime ago someone >> raised >> > this as a potential issue when we wanted to depend on Felix and it was >> > incubating at the time. >> >> Good question. One option is of course to depend on 0.9 which is being >> released outside of Apache. However, it would of course be beneficial >> to be able to track the developments during the incubation period so >> I'll make sure to check the policies. Do you think [EMAIL PROTECTED] is >> the best place to start? >> > > Yeah that would be best place. If I remember correctly, releasing > ftp-server using incubator code is OK but you have to assure diligence for > jsecurity since the PMC is responsible for the ftp-server release. You > just cannot release independent jsecurity jars as part of ftp-server. Now > what this translates to in release mechanics is you'll have to replicate the > jsecurity code as part of ftp-server and cannot depend on the jsecurity jar > being in the maven repo. > > Then when they graduate I think you can shed the code and just rely on > their dependencies. Again tho this is just faint memories of what I > gathered from past experiences. The IPMC would > > Alex > > -- > Microsoft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the whole house ... > -- Microsoft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the whole house ...
