You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> on 2007/10/12 04:42:47 UTC
[Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Are there are any major items that we want to get into a J2G 1.0.0
release, or is everyone ready to create a branch and start the release
process?
-Donald
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by "Erik B. Craig" <gi...@gmail.com>.
It all seems pretty good to me - the only hangup being if there were still
compile/version issue relating to the change to the full Eclipse 3.3 release
from the RC2 that it was pulling at compile time, which has been taken care
of.
Other than that, I've got nothing currently.
David - Chiming in with Jason on this, I am not familiar with the
maven-remote-resources-plugin either.
On 10/11/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Are there are any major items that we want to get into a J2G 1.0.0
> release, or is everyone ready to create a branch and start the release
> process?
>
> -Donald
>
>
--
Erik B. Craig
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com>.
David,
Nevermind. It was early and I was being slow.
On 10/13/07, Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I'm not actually familiar with that plugin at all. Would you mind
> providing a sentence or two breaking it down?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason Warner
>
> On 10/12/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
> > >
> > >> Donald,
> > >>
> > >> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If
> > >> we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
> > >> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
> > >
> > > By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license
> > > files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the
> > > patch was generated?
> >
> > I'll push the maven-remote-resources-plugin here again...
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> > >
> > > --kevan
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com>.
David,
I'm not actually familiar with that plugin at all. Would you mind providing
a sentence or two breaking it down?
Thanks,
Jason Warner
On 10/12/07, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
> >
> >> Donald,
> >>
> >> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If
> >> we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
> >> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
> >
> > By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license
> > files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the
> > patch was generated?
>
> I'll push the maven-remote-resources-plugin here again...
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> > --kevan
> >
>
>
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
>
>> Donald,
>>
>> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If
>> we can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
>> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
>
> By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license
> files. Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the
> patch was generated?
I'll push the maven-remote-resources-plugin here again...
thanks
david jencks
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
> Donald,
>
> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we
> can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
By the way, the patches seem to be missing a number of license files.
Possible that some files hadn't been svn add'ed when the patch was
generated?
--kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kevan,
Thanks for the feedback! I have addressed your comment No. 1 below in
rev 586078.
For No.2, I added dom4j, pull-parser and jaxen in the notice.txt. I
also added notice for commons-logging. I don't see a notice file for
commons-el, jasper-runtime, jasper-compiler, or jasper-compiler-jdt.
I only made changes in the license and notice files in the j2g\trunk\
dir. Once you approve them, I'll copy them over to various other
directories. Thanks.
Lin
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:49 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis in
>> the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is anything
>> else that is missing from a legal point of view, please let me know.
>
> Hi Lin,
> That's great. Thanks for working on this. A few comments:
>
> 1. Artifacts that are AL2 licensed can still be mentioned in the license
> file. Although not necessary, it's good for completeness. Just say the
> following are licensed under ALv2: commons-logging, etc.
>
> 2. I think the NOTICE file needs a bit more attention. Even though
> projects are ALv2 licensed, we need to reproduce their NOTICE
> attributions as appropriate. Also, our notice file should mention dom4j,
> pull-parser, and jaxen and reproduce the copyrights that are in their
> licenses. The pull-parser license requires the following acknowledgement:
>
> "This product includes software developed by the Indiana
> University Extreme! Lab. For further information please visit
> http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/"
>
> The appropriate location for this acknowledgement is the NOTICE file.
>
> I'll look a bit more...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:49 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
> Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis
> in the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is
> anything else that is missing from a legal point of view, please
> let me know.
Hi Lin,
That's great. Thanks for working on this. A few comments:
1. Artifacts that are AL2 licensed can still be mentioned in the
license file. Although not necessary, it's good for completeness.
Just say the following are licensed under ALv2: commons-logging, etc.
2. I think the NOTICE file needs a bit more attention. Even though
projects are ALv2 licensed, we need to reproduce their NOTICE
attributions as appropriate. Also, our notice file should mention
dom4j, pull-parser, and jaxen and reproduce the copyrights that are
in their licenses. The pull-parser license requires the following
acknowledgement:
"This product includes software developed by the Indiana
University Extreme! Lab. For further information please visit
http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/"
The appropriate location for this acknowledgement is the NOTICE file.
I'll look a bit more...
--kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis in
the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is anything else
that is missing from a legal point of view, please let me know.
Thanks,
Lin
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
>
>> Donald,
>>
>> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we
>> can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a
>> 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
>
> Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed before j2g can be released. I
> had problems building and haven't gotten back to it...
>
> There's a jira (GERONIMO-3309) with 2 patches that are supposed to fix.
> If somebody can have a look, that'd be great...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
Kevan, I'll look at it. I agree the license issues should be fixed
before we release j2g 1.0.
Lin
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
>
>> Donald,
>>
>> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we
>> can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a
>> 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
>
> Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed before j2g can be released. I
> had problems building and haven't gotten back to it...
>
> There's a jira (GERONIMO-3309) with 2 patches that are supposed to fix.
> If somebody can have a look, that'd be great...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
> Donald,
>
> I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we
> can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
> releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed before j2g can be released.
I had problems building and haven't gotten back to it...
There's a jira (GERONIMO-3309) with 2 patches that are supposed to
fix. If somebody can have a look, that'd be great...
--kevan
Re: [Discuss] Remaining work items before we create a J2G 1.0.0 branch?
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com>.
Donald,
I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we can get
a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for releasing a 1.0.0.
Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
~ Jason Warner
On 10/11/07, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Are there are any major items that we want to get into a J2G 1.0.0
> release, or is everyone ready to create a branch and start the release
> process?
>
> -Donald
>
>