Does anyone on this list know of an existing open source pure-Java Advanced
Audio Coding (AAC) library? If not, are there any audiophiles on this list
that would be interested in incubating such a project with me? :) Do you
know of any barriers to such a project (like performance of a pure-Java
Todd Volkert wrote:
Does anyone on this list know of an existing open source pure-Java Advanced
Audio Coding (AAC) library? If not, are there any audiophiles on this list
that would be interested in incubating such a project with me? :) Do you
know of any barriers to such a project (like
Branko Čibej wrote:
Actually, we're talking about API documentation which in Subversion's
case is generated from the sources, so yes, it is subject to release
votes. But only for actual releases.
Restricting the publishing of generated API documentation would imply
that we should restrict
Branko Čibej wrote:
So I'm not too clear on what your objections are.
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion
of the project's web site.
Then you should start
Leo Simons wrote:
So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's
really
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
Niall Pemberton wrote:
You're taking a
policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to
something it wasn't intended to cover.
Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases
doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the
same copyright
Doug Cutting wrote:
In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order
I have not objected to anything.
Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb object in a prior message:
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
I
Hi;
After over one years in the incubator with providing three releases
OpenWebBeans community with the support of our mentors feel that we are
ready to propose to the Incubator PMC to graduate OpenWebBeans to a
Top Level Project.
See the following community
Doug Cutting wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
So I'm not too clear on what your objections are.
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion
of the project's web site.
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and
follow this best practice?
I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy
indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/ URL.
I think it would be
Doug Cutting wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be
sufficient and
follow this best practice?
I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard
Roy indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and
follow this best practice?
I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy
indicate that all
- Original Message
From: Paul Querna p...@querna.org
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 5:34:18 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I suspect that renaming
On 06/12/2009, at 08:56, Gavin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thorsten Scherler [mailto:thorsten.scherler@juntadeandalucia.es]
Sent: Friday, 4 December 2009 10:35 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: How to put droids into the snapshot rep
Hi all,
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
can't take the release back.
Good point. We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do
releases, nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an
archive that folks might download
- Original Message
From: Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 6:24:18 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
can't
+1 (again ;-) )
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi;
After over one years in the incubator with providing three
releases
OpenWebBeans community with the support of our mentors feel that we
are
ready to propose to the
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Branko Čibej br...@xbc.nu wrote:
Todd Volkert wrote:
Does anyone on this list know of an existing open source pure-Java Advanced
Audio Coding (AAC) library? If not, are there any audiophiles on this list
that would be interested in incubating such a project
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
It's fine to make nightly builds available, including of documentation. All
I'm suggesting is that, just as nightly builds should not be linked to from
the general download page, nightly documentation should not be linked
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
distinction, so
There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
and distribution to a self-selected subgroup. Niclas has no clue
what he's talking about when liability considerations are factored in,
and as this is not a list where legal council for the ASF makes itself
available I suggest his
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
You are right that it is a big IMHO of everything here, but
self-selected subgroup is not a legal term in
24 matches
Mail list logo
