You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2018/03/14 16:48:56 UTC
[VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Hi!
Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
Here is the staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
The VOTE is open for 72h.
Here is my +1.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Fair enough for me.
About my e-mail, it's just a question of wording: just don't use "veto" ;)
Regards
JB
On 19/03/2018 07:43, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> I know but releasing with a -1 is irrespect for the community and I dont
> want to pass in force for a notice. Will recreate it later today.
>
> Is it ok to put a readme.adoc for you in metainf?
>
>
> Le 19 mars 2018 07:27, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <jb@nanthrax.net
> <ma...@nanthrax.net>> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine
> with this and address in next release, we can proceed.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the
> release since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good
> practise?
>
> If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not
> standard file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any
> reason to require another vote for that for now.
>
>
> Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau"
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> a
> écrit :
>
> @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have
> another discuss
> thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau
> <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/>> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau>> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | Book
>
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>>
>
> 2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de
> <ma...@yahoo.de>
> <mailto:struberg@yahoo.de <ma...@yahoo.de>>>:
>
> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need
> not' and
> not 'MUST NOT'.
> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show
> stopper imo.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> <mailto:johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>>:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
> <john.d.ament@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
> <struberg@yahoo.de <ma...@yahoo.de>
> <mailto:struberg@yahoo.de <ma...@yahoo.de>>> wrote:
> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
> >
> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the
> above
> copyright
> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following
> disclaimer.
> > >
> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce
> the above
> copyright
> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following
> disclaimer in the
> > > documentation and/or other materials provided
> with the
> distribution.
> >
> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> >
> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is
> already
> present by copying in their license file.
> >
> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and
> should not
> go into a notice file
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>>
> >
> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being
> excluded.
> >
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> <mailto:johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>> a
> écrit :
> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the
> consumed product includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause
> products, the copyright statement (including download
> link) is
> in the license file. So its enough to list it there.
> > >
> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> > >
> > > It is not incorrect since the license is
> particular it must
> be in notice to be able to put all parts together on
> user side.
> If you dont you let users do again this job which is
> insanely bad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> <mailto:johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>> a
> écrit :
> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for
> the ASM
> shaded dependency) include
> > >
> > > This product includes software developed at
> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> > >
> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we
> should not need to declare any notice.
> > >
> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf
> project
> so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their
> website look a
> bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to
> completely drop it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> > > yep, as written ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
> <jeanouii@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:jeanouii@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
> > > Romain,
> > >
> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM
> upgrade, right?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> a
> écrit :
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> > >
> > > Here is the staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>
>
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>>
> > > The source distribution can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>
>
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>>
> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> > >
> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> > >
> > > [+1] ship it
> > > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> > >
> > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> > >
> > > Here is my +1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
I know but releasing with a -1 is irrespect for the community and I dont
want to pass in force for a notice. Will recreate it later today.
Is it ok to put a readme.adoc for you in metainf?
Le 19 mars 2018 07:27, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <jb...@nanthrax.net> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine with this
> and address in next release, we can proceed.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release
>> since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?
>>
>> If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file
>> to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another
>> vote for that for now.
>>
>>
>> Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss
>> thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-
>> high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de
>> <ma...@yahoo.de>>:
>>
>> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and
>> not 'MUST NOT'.
>> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show
>> stopper imo.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament
>> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
>> <john.d.ament@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
>> <struberg@yahoo.de <ma...@yahoo.de>> wrote:
>> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>> >
>> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
>> copyright
>> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following
>> disclaimer.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>> copyright
>> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following
>> disclaimer in the
>> > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>> distribution.
>> >
>> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>> >
>> > +1 from me.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already
>> present by copying in their license file.
>> >
>> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not
>> go into a notice file
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>
>> >
>> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> >
>> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
>> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> a écrit :
>> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the
>> consumed product includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause
>> products, the copyright statement (including download link) is
>> in the license file. So its enough to list it there.
>> > >
>> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>> > >
>> > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must
>> be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side.
>> If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
>> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> a écrit :
>> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM
>> shaded dependency) include
>> > >
>> > > This product includes software developed at
>> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>> > >
>> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we
>> should not need to declare any notice.
>> > >
>> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project
>> so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a
>> bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop
>> it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > yep, as written ;)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>> > >
>> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
>> <jeanouii@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>> > > Romain,
>> > >
>> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>> > >
>> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>> > > Hi!
>> > >
>> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>> > >
>> > > Here is the staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> geronimo-1049
>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapach
>> egeronimo-1049>
>> > > The source distribution can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> geronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapach
>> egeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>
>> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>> > >
>> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>> > >
>> > > [+1] ship it
>> > > [+0] meh, don’t care
>> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>> > >
>> > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
>> > >
>> > > Here is my +1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,
there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine with
this and address in next release, we can proceed.
Regards
JB
On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release
> since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?
>
> If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard
> file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require
> another vote for that for now.
>
>
> Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss
> thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de
> <ma...@yahoo.de>>:
>
> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and
> not 'MUST NOT'.
> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show
> stopper imo.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
> <john.d.ament@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
> <struberg@yahoo.de <ma...@yahoo.de>> wrote:
> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
> >
> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> copyright
> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following
> disclaimer.
> > >
> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright
> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following
> disclaimer in the
> > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
> >
> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> >
> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already
> present by copying in their license file.
> >
> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not
> go into a notice file
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>
> >
> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
> >
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> a écrit :
> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the
> consumed product includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause
> products, the copyright statement (including download link) is
> in the license file. So its enough to list it there.
> > >
> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> > >
> > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must
> be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side.
> If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> a écrit :
> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM
> shaded dependency) include
> > >
> > > This product includes software developed at
> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> > >
> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we
> should not need to declare any notice.
> > >
> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project
> so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a
> bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > yep, as written ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
> <jeanouii@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> > > Romain,
> > >
> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> > >
> > > Here is the staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>
> > > The source distribution can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>
> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> > >
> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> > >
> > > [+1] ship it
> > > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> > >
> > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> > >
> > > Here is my +1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:39 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release
> since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?
>
-1's on releases are never vetos. Very surprised you don't know this. You
should review [1] and [2] esp since you're a new chair.
[1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
[2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file
> to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another
> vote for that for now.
>
>
> Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss
>> thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>>
>>> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST
>>> NOT'.
>>> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>>> >
>>> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>> > >
>>> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
>>> the
>>> > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>>> distribution.
>>> >
>>> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>>> >
>>> > +1 from me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by
>>> copying in their license file.
>>> >
>>> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a
>>> notice file
>>> >
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>>> >
>>> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > LieGrue,
>>> > strub
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
>>> écrit :
>>> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed
>>> product includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright
>>> statement (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough
>>> to list it there.
>>> > >
>>> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>>> > >
>>> > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in
>>> notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you
>>> let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
>>> écrit :
>>> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
>>> dependency) include
>>> > >
>>> > > This product includes software developed at
>>> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>>> > >
>>> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not
>>> need to declare any notice.
>>> > >
>>> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is
>>> no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I
>>> was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > yep, as written ;)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>> > >
>>> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>>> > > Romain,
>>> > >
>>> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>> > >
>>> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > > Hi!
>>> > >
>>> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>> > >
>>> > > Here is the staging repo:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>> > > The source distribution can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>> > >
>>> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>> > >
>>> > > [+1] ship it
>>> > > [+0] meh, don’t care
>>> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>> > >
>>> > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>> > >
>>> > > Here is my +1.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release
since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?
If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file
to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another
vote for that for now.
Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss
> thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>
>> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST
>> NOT'.
>> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>> >
>> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>> >
>> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>> >
>> > +1 from me.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by
>> copying in their license file.
>> >
>> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a
>> notice file
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>> >
>> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> >
>> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
>> écrit :
>> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
>> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
>> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
>> there.
>> > >
>> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>> > >
>> > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in
>> notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you
>> let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
>> écrit :
>> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
>> dependency) include
>> > >
>> > > This product includes software developed at
>> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>> > >
>> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not
>> need to declare any notice.
>> > >
>> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is
>> no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I
>> was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > yep, as written ;)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>> > >
>> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>> > > Romain,
>> > >
>> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>> > >
>> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > > Hi!
>> > >
>> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>> > >
>> > > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/
>> content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>> > > The source distribution can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> geronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>> > >
>> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>> > >
>> > > [+1] ship it
>> > > [+0] meh, don’t care
>> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>> > >
>> > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
>> > >
>> > > Here is my +1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss thread
about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST
> NOT'.
> Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
> >
> > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > >
> > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> > > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> >
> > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> >
> > Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by
> copying in their license file.
> >
> > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a
> notice file
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
> >
> > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
> >
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> écrit :
> > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
> there.
> > >
> > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> > >
> > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in
> notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you
> let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a
> écrit :
> > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
> dependency) include
> > >
> > > This product includes software developed at
> > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> > >
> > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need
> to declare any notice.
> > >
> > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no
> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was
> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > yep, as written ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
> > > Romain,
> > >
> > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> > >
> > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> > >
> > > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/
> content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > > The source distribution can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-
> 4.7-source-release.zip
> > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> > >
> > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> > >
> > > [+1] ship it
> > > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> > >
> > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> > >
> > > Here is my +1.
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST NOT'.
Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
> Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.
>
> BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>
> There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it there.
> >
> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> >
> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> >
> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
> >
> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yep, as written ;)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
> > Romain,
> >
> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> >
> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> >
> > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> >
> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> >
> > [+1] ship it
> > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> >
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>>
>> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> >
>> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>
>> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>>
> Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by
> copying in their license file.
>
BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a
notice file
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>
>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit
>> :
>> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
>> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
>> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
>> there.
>> >
>> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>> >
>> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in
>> notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you
>> let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit
>> :
>> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
>> dependency) include
>> >
>> > This product includes software developed at
>> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>> >
>> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need
>> to declare any notice.
>> >
>> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no
>> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was
>> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > yep, as written ;)
>> >
>> >
>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>> >
>> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>> > Romain,
>> >
>> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>> >
>> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>> >
>> > Here is the staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>> > The source distribution can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>> >
>> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>> >
>> > [+1] ship it
>> > [+0] meh, don’t care
>> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>> >
>> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
>> >
>> > Here is my +1.
>> >
>> >
>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
Sorry but you're incorrect. The copyright claim is already present by
copying in their license file.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
> there.
> >
> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> >
> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice
> to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let
> users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
> dependency) include
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> >
> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need
> to declare any notice.
> >
> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no
> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was
> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yep, as written ;)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
> > Romain,
> >
> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> >
> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> >
> > Here is the staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > The source distribution can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> >
> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> >
> > [+1] ship it
> > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
+1 from me.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it there.
>
> My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>
> It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
>
> This product includes software developed at
> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>
> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
>
> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yep, as written ;)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
> Romain,
>
> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>
> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>
> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>
> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>
> [+1] ship it
> [+0] meh, don’t care
> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Ok checked back and the notice rules are strict on one asf page and less on
another one, guess this is where the divergence came.
I feel quite bad to drop it from notice since it is a key dependency with a
very particular license (BSD-3-Clause+custom).
I think it does worth mentionning it for end users but we don't have such
standard file @asf, right?
Is it a big deal to keep it this way?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-14 19:00 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
> there.
>
> My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>
>
> It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice
> to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let
> users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>>
>> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
>> dependency) include
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>>
>> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to
>> declare any notice.
>>
>>
>> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no
>> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was
>> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> yep, as written ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Romain,
>>>>
>>>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>>>
>>>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apach
>>>>> e.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>>>> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apach
>>>>> e.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache
>>>>> /xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>>>>
>>>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>>>>
>>>>> [+1] ship it
>>>>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>>>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>>>>
>>>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my +1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Jay McHugh <ja...@gmail.com>.
The notice file appears to have been introduced to deal with a deficiency
tracked as Jira issue XBEAN-283.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-283
My vote: +1
We can review the merits of that issue separately and if it turns out that
it is decided to be redundant to have the notice file - we can note it and
remove the file later.
I don't think that it is necessary to hold up the release for something
that has been unquestioned for nearly three years.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
> includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
> (including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
> there.
>
> My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>
>
> It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice
> to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let
> users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>>
>> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
>> dependency) include
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>>
>> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to
>> declare any notice.
>>
>>
>> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no
>> bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was
>> not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> yep, as written ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Romain,
>>>>
>>>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>>>
>>>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the staging repo:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>>>> The source distribution can be found here:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>>>>
>>>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>>>>
>>>>> [+1] ship it
>>>>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>>>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>>>>
>>>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my +1.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
(including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
there.
My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to
be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users
do again this job which is insanely bad.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
> dependency) include
>
> This product includes software developed at
> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>
> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to
> declare any notice.
>
>
> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad
> IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not
> sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> yep, as written ;)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Romain,
>>>
>>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>>
>>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/
>>>> repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>>> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.
>>>> apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/
>>>> apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>>>
>>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>>>
>>>> [+1] ship it
>>>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>>>
>>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my +1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product
includes a NOTICE file. In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement
(including download link) is in the license file. So its enough to list it
there.
My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
> dependency) include
>
> This product includes software developed at
> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>
> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to
> declare any notice.
>
>
> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad
> IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not
> sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> yep, as written ;)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Romain,
>>>
>>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>>
>>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the staging repo:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>>> The source distribution can be found here:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>>>
>>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>>>
>>>> [+1] ship it
>>>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>>>
>>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my +1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
dependency) include
This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to
declare any notice.
Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad
IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not
sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> yep, as written ;)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Romain,
>>
>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>
>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>>
>>> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/
>>> repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.
>>> apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/
>>> apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>>
>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>>
>>> [+1] ship it
>>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>>
>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1.
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded
dependency) include
This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to
declare any notice.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> yep, as written ;)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Romain,
>>
>> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>>
>> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>>
>>> Here is the staging repo:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>>> The source distribution can be found here:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>>
>>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>>
>>> [+1] ship it
>>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>>
>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1.
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
yep, as written ;)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>:
> Romain,
>
> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>
> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>>
>> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/
>> repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.
>> apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/
>> apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>>
>> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>>
>> [+1] ship it
>> [+0] meh, don’t care
>> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>>
>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>
>> Here is my +1.
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
Romain,
as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>
> Here is the staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> The source distribution can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>
> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>
> [+1] ship it
> [+0] meh, don’t care
> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>