Re: cvs commit: apr/build jlibtool.c

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 02:41  PM, martin@apache.org wrote:

> martin      2004/06/29 05:41:11
>
>   Added:       build    jlibtool.c
>   Log:
>   Commit the missing jlibtool.c from Justin's 
> http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/jlibtool.c --
>   It was referenced by "configure --enable-experimental-libtool" 
> already.
>   Also, it helps in building on platforms not directly supported by 
> libtool
>   (for those, libtools behaves utterly stupidly).
>
>   Obtained from: http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/jlibtool.c
>   Reviewed by:	<jfclere apache.org>

Hello?  What makes you think you can do that?  Aside from having the
wrong license, you don't have the right to commit Justin's code unless
he tells you to do so on the public mailing list.  You should ask him
to do the commit himself, since that makes it a donation by the author
rather than a copy by someone else.

-1 to that commit.  +1 to Justin fixing the license and committing
the code.

....Roy

Re: cvs commit: apr/build jlibtool.c

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

> --On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:31 PM +0200 "Roy T. Fielding"
> <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello?  What makes you think you can do that?  Aside from having the
> > wrong license, you don't have the right to commit Justin's code unless
> > he tells you to do so on the public mailing list.  You should ask him
> > to do the commit himself, since that makes it a donation by the author
> > rather than a copy by someone else.
> >
> > -1 to that commit.  +1 to Justin fixing the license and committing
> > the code.
>
> Wow.  Yah.  Why did this get committed?  And why now?  Was there a
particular
> reason that you wanted this?  I'm fairly sure that there wasn't a
discussion
> about this on dev@apr.  So where did this review happen?  *scratches head*

Sums up my own reaction.

> I'm not totally against relicensing and committing it, but especially so
close
> to APR 1.0, I'd at least like to know why now.  I believe in the past the
> feeling was that jlibtool should not be in the tree - Jeff and several
others
> have their own libtool replacements, so, at the last ApacheCon, we had
> discussed taking a real effort and support all of them.  *shrug*  -- 
justin

Actually I wasn't going to tag this for 1.0 anyways for the exact reasons
you state.

david

Re: cvs commit: apr/build jlibtool.c

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:31 PM +0200 "Roy T. Fielding" 
<fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:

> Hello?  What makes you think you can do that?  Aside from having the
> wrong license, you don't have the right to commit Justin's code unless
> he tells you to do so on the public mailing list.  You should ask him
> to do the commit himself, since that makes it a donation by the author
> rather than a copy by someone else.
>
> -1 to that commit.  +1 to Justin fixing the license and committing
> the code.

Wow.  Yah.  Why did this get committed?  And why now?  Was there a particular 
reason that you wanted this?  I'm fairly sure that there wasn't a discussion 
about this on dev@apr.  So where did this review happen?  *scratches head*

I'm not totally against relicensing and committing it, but especially so close 
to APR 1.0, I'd at least like to know why now.  I believe in the past the 
feeling was that jlibtool should not be in the tree - Jeff and several others 
have their own libtool replacements, so, at the last ApacheCon, we had 
discussed taking a real effort and support all of them.  *shrug*  -- justin