On Feb 20, 5:29 pm, Bastian Doetsch <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the patch! The functionality looks good. > > Although I don't like the ini4j inclusion too much. Any opinions about > that? We'd be including an Apache 2.0 licensed software within > MercurialEclipse.
The Apache 2.0 License is quite permissive and compatible with the EPL, but to make things simpler it would probably be better to consume code with other licenses as libraries instead of integrating the source into the codebase. > I'd rather prefer a fix to hg paths in Mercurial > that enables inclusion of the complete URIs. If possible, that sounds better indeed. Best, Ismael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MercurialEclipse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mercurialeclipse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
