Hi Steve,
There is plenty of information on the incubator web site. I suggest
reading
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html (not
normative)
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/
Incubation_Policy.html#Releases (normative)
The references below are more discussions on
On 7/29/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany project requests permission of the IPMC to release the SDO
Java 1.0-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev list vote passed with 5+1s (2 IPMC binding), see ref [0] below
The release candidate RC3 for Tuscany Java SDO archive
i count:
+1 robertburrelldonkin (*)
+1 Yoav Shapira (*)
+1 Guillaume Nodet
+1 Martijn Dashorst
+1 Matthieu Riou
+1 Craig L Russell (*)
+1 Niclas Hedhman(*)
unless someone jumps in with a correction, i will proceed
- robert
-
Thanks Robert,
I finally managed to prod one of our mentors into getting the grant form
added to:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
We'll start the rest of the steps now that that has been done and we can
start filling in the check box dates and such.
Thanks!
Dan
On Wednesday 25
On Monday 30 July 2007 15:41, Gilles Scokart wrote:
Did you like the idea? Are there people here wanting to collaborate
on it? What does the mentors here advices for the next steps?
Not that *I* would spend my time on making this a reality, but I would enjoy
the end result...
hat type=PMC
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into different
folders.
...ant
On 7/30/07, Graham Turrell (gmail) [EMAIL
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into
different
folders.
I must agree about the nightmare.
Including separate files is much easier and could be automated by
maven or any other build tool much more easily...
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file, and
I like the idea of the license maven artifact. It takes quite some
effort in determining the actual license of any dependency (I've been
on a license hunt myself several times). Having the license published
in the repository next to the (jar) artifact (and included in the
artifacts META-INF
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 00:26, Matthieu Riou wrote:
I've seen the documentation as well but couldn't find the justification
behind it.
I think it relates to Legal Folks like single files, which can be read as a
Word Document once(!) and then poked around inside. Only developers are fond
Following general@ isn't a great effort. The last 2 weeks we are looking at
~10-12 messages a day on average. And if one is really short on time, which
happens to all of us, it is fairly easy to skip a couple of threads...
I found that subscribing to a digest instead of the list itself
makes
Hi Matthieu,
On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
I'd rather have all the specific licenses each
in there file reproduced side by side with the library the license is
applied on (with similar namings, i.e. dom4j-1.3.LICENSE) and a simple
pointer in the main LICENSE file (licenses
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file, and
15 matches
Mail list logo
