You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2009/01/28 23:25:26 UTC
[VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0 spec
jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first early
access milestone release.
I've staged the release here:
http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
The svn location is here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early
access release, but will reconsider on request.
I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal files
are ok.
Vote open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1
thanks
david jencks
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
My +1
david jencks
On Jan 28, 2009, at 2:25 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
> early access milestone release.
>
> I've staged the release here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>
> The svn location is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>
> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early
> access release, but will reconsider on request.
>
> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
> files are ok.
>
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
+1
David Jencks wrote:
> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0 spec
> jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first early
> access milestone release.
>
> I've staged the release here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>
>
> The svn location is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>
>
> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early
> access release, but will reconsider on request.
>
> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal files
> are ok.
>
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
+1
Jcek Laskowski wrote:
> +1
>
> Jacek
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:25 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0 spec jar
>> in our spec repository. They are ready for their first early access
>> milestone release.
>>
>> I've staged the release here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>
>> The svn location is here:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>
>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early access
>> release, but will reconsider on request.
>>
>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal files are
>> ok.
>>
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
+1
Jacek
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:25 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0 spec jar
> in our spec repository. They are ready for their first early access
> milestone release.
>
> I've staged the release here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>
> The svn location is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>
> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early access
> release, but will reconsider on request.
>
> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal files are
> ok.
>
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
--
Jacek Laskowski
Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Any replies from Sun on this?
-Donald
Donald Woods wrote:
> Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
> the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>>> and revisit for the next release?
>>
>> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
>> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
>> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> Looks like a problem.
>>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>>>> meet clause ii?
>>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>>> NOTICE
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>>> implementation:
>>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not
>>>>> compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>>> files are ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Any replies from Sun on this?
-Donald
Donald Woods wrote:
> Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
> the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>>> and revisit for the next release?
>>
>> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
>> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
>> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> Looks like a problem.
>>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>>>> meet clause ii?
>>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>>> NOTICE
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>>> implementation:
>>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not
>>>>> compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>>> files are ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>> and revisit for the next release?
>
> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> Looks like a problem.
>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses
>>>> below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the
>>>> NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA
>>>> 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet
>>>> clause ii?
>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>> NOTICE
>>>> ...
>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>> implementation:
>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
>>>> Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
>>>> Specifications being implemented;
>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>>>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible
>>>> with any specification of the JCP."
>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>
>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>
>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>> files are ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Geir, any updates on getting item (iii) below removed, so we can release
the early spec implementation and a OpenJPA 2.0.0 M1 release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
>> and revisit for the next release?
>
> My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
> with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
> changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> Looks like a problem.
>>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses
>>>> below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the
>>>> NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA
>>>> 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet
>>>> clause ii?
>>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>>> NOTICE
>>>> ...
>>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>>> implementation:
>>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
>>>> Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
>>>> Specifications being implemented;
>>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>>>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible
>>>> with any specification of the JCP."
>>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>>> early access milestone release.
>>>>
>>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The svn location is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>>
>>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>>> files are ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
> and revisit for the next release?
My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> Looks like a problem.
>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>> meet clause ii?
>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>> NOTICE
>>> ...
>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>> implementation:
>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is
>>> not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>> early access milestone release.
>>>
>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>
>>> The svn location is here:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>
>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>> files are ok.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1
> and revisit for the next release?
My interpretation of Geir's response is that we can't distribute stuff
with this restriction, so no, we have to wait until the conditions are
changed at which point the existing jar under vote will be OK.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> Looks like a problem.
>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>>> meet clause ii?
>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>> NOTICE
>>> ...
>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>> implementation:
>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is
>>> not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>> early access milestone release.
>>>
>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>
>>> The svn location is here:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>
>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>> files are ok.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access
release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1 and
revisit for the next release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
> Looks like a problem.
>
> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>
> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early access
>> naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses below,
>> notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the NOTICE in
>> the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA 2.0 EARLY
>> ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet clause ii?
>>
>> <jsr-317 draft>
>> NOTICE
>> ...
>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties for
>> their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such implementation:
>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor
>> Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java
>> interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other
>> than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications
>> being implemented;
>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible with
>> any specification of the JCP."
>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>> early access milestone release.
>>
>> I've staged the release here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>
>> The svn location is here:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>
>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>
>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>> files are ok.
>>
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access
release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
No, as our naming matches what Sun used for their EA jars of the JAXWS
2.1 API -
http://download.java.net/maven/1/javax.xml.ws/jars/
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
> On legal-discuss, Geir indicated he would try to get (iii) removed which
> might mean this vote could resume.
>
> Does anyone think we need to name the version (or artifactID)
> differently based on (ii)?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:33 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Looks like a problem.
>>
>> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>>
>> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses
>>> below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the
>>> NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA
>>> 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet clause
>>> ii?
>>>
>>> <jsr-317 draft>
>>> NOTICE
>>> ...
>>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>>> implementation:
>>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
>>> Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
>>> Specifications being implemented;
>>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible with
>>> any specification of the JCP."
>>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>>> early access milestone release.
>>>
>>> I've staged the release here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>>
>>> The svn location is here:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>>
>>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>>
>>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>>> files are ok.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On legal-discuss, Geir indicated he would try to get (iii) removed
which might mean this vote could resume.
Does anyone think we need to name the version (or artifactID)
differently based on (ii)?
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:33 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> Looks like a problem.
>
> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>
> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
>> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the
>> clauses below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added
>> to the NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE
>> use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to
>> meet clause ii?
>>
>> <jsr-317 draft>
>> NOTICE
>> ...
>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
>> implementation:
>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification
>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made
>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not
>> compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>> early access milestone release.
>>
>> I've staged the release here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>
>> The svn location is here:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>
>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early
>> access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>
>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>> files are ok.
>>
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>
Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access
release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Any updates on item (iii)? Can we just include the notice for EA-1 and
revisit for the next release?
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
> Looks like a problem.
>
> I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
>
> I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early access
>> naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses below,
>> notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the NOTICE in
>> the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA 2.0 EARLY
>> ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet clause ii?
>>
>> <jsr-317 draft>
>> NOTICE
>> ...
>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties for
>> their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such implementation:
>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor
>> Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java
>> interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other
>> than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications
>> being implemented;
>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
>> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible with
>> any specification of the JCP."
>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
>> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
>> early access milestone release.
>>
>> I've staged the release here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>>
>> The svn location is here:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>>
>> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a
>> early access release, but will reconsider on request.
>>
>> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
>> files are ok.
>>
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>
[CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Looks like a problem.
I sent a note to legal-discuss about (iii).
I'll work on setting up a new release candidate.
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> David,
>
> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early
> access naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses
> below, notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the
> NOTICE in the EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA
> 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet
> clause ii?
>
> <jsr-317 draft>
> NOTICE
> ...
> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties
> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such
> implementation:
> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,
> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
> Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
> Specifications being implemented;
> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or
> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in
> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or
> link is under Licensee's control; and
> (iii)includes the following notice:
> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
> testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible
> with any specification of the JCP."
> </jsr-317 draft>
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
> early access milestone release.
>
> I've staged the release here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>
> The svn location is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>
> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early
> access release, but will reconsider on request.
>
> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
> files are ok.
>
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
-1
Agree with Jeremy that we need to include the required notice in the jar.
-Donald
Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> David,
>
> While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early access
> naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses below,
> notably item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the NOTICE in the
> EA jar? Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS"
> instead of simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet clause ii?
>
> <jsr-317 draft>
> NOTICE
> ...
> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties for
> their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such implementation:
> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor
> Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java
> interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than
> those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being
> implemented;
> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or "EARLY
> ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in proximity
> to every link initiating its download, where the list or link is under
> Licensee's control; and
> (iii)includes the following notice:
> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for testing
> and evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible with any
> specification of the JCP."
> </jsr-317 draft>
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0
> spec jar in our spec repository. They are ready for their first
> early access milestone release.
>
> I've staged the release here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>
> The svn location is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>
> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early
> access release, but will reconsider on request.
>
> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal
> files are ok.
>
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
Re: [VOTE] geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec first early access release
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
David,
While searching the JSR-317 draft for direction regarding early access
naming, I found that the notice (page 2) includes the clauses below, notably
item iii. Does clause iii need to be added to the NOTICE in the EA jar?
Also, should the Geronimo EA NOTICE use "JPA 2.0 EARLY ACCESS" instead of
simply "JPA 2.0" in order to meet clause ii?
<jsr-317 draft>
NOTICE
...
2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties for their
testing and evaluation use, provided that any such implementation:
(i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name
Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java
interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than
those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being
implemented;
(ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or "EARLY
ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in proximity to
every link initiating its download, where the list or link is under
Licensee's control; and
(iii)includes the following notice:
"This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed under
the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for testing and
evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible with any specification
of the JCP."
</jsr-317 draft>
-Jeremy
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> I've been working with the OpenJPA project to develop the jpa 2.0 spec jar
> in our spec repository. They are ready for their first early access
> milestone release.
>
> I've staged the release here:
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-repo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec/1.0-EA-1/
>
> The svn location is here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA-1
>
> I haven't staged the site. I don't think its necessary for a early access
> release, but will reconsider on request.
>
> I ran rat on the project, and the autochecking thinks the legal files are
> ok.
>
>
> Vote open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>