[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [rt-pmc] Fw: [cross-project-issues-dev] The final rules for thefinal builds ...
|
I will look into this....
thanks
christian
Is someone from the riena team looking into this issue?
Tom
----- Forwarded by Thomas Watson/Austin/IBM on 06/08/2011 04:05 PM -----
<ecblank.gif>
From: | <ecblank.gif>
David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS |
<ecblank.gif>
To: | <ecblank.gif>
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
<ecblank.gif>
Date: | <ecblank.gif>
06/08/2011 03:51 PM |
<ecblank.gif>
Subject: | <ecblank.gif>
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] The final rules for the final builds ... |
Yes, good point ... that's what I meant to say :)
I think the 25 or so that are listed as having a "different license" should be checked ... they are probably reasonable and/or being fixed by some last minute submissions (I know for sure some are) but the auto testing just detects they are neither the 2011 license, or the 2010 license ... maybe its the 2009 SUA? Or, maybe it's "junk" ... but that just effects two projects,
amp, and
riena
I believe the com mongodb feature is being attended to (and, it that case it was not even an old Eclipse SUA, but something else).
From: John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06/08/2011 04:33 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] The final rules for the final builds ...
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Second, if its one of the other "big hitters", such as unsigned jars
> or 3 part versioning, or inconsistent license in repository, then
> you either need to resubmit, or withdraw from being in common repo
> (you can still release, just be in your own repo/download site), or,
> third option, talk to your PMC and Planning Council representative
> to file for an exception for your project.
Since about a third of the features in the common release repository still have last year's SUA (> 200 features), and only a few hours to go until the *final* build, I think we should consider a blanket exception for the "common license" requirement to avoid either a flood of last minute rebuilds and/or exception requests. For context, last year there was significant change to the legal text in the SUA, so this requirement was very important. This year, the only change in the SUA is the addition of the Eclipse Distribution License in the list of possible licenses. Since many projects aren't actually using the EDL this doesn't feel like a "cannot ship without it" kind of problem (if you really are using the EDL that's a different story). Deferring until SR1 for this kind of change feels like the right answer at this point in the process. I'd be curious to hear what other PC members and Wayne think about this...
I should point out in the report there is a single feature with no update license: org.eclipse.jwt.feature. This does feel like a stop ship problem, since the Eclipse SUA says that the user must be presented with terms and conditions before installing any software.
John_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
<ATT00001..c>
-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
Ust-Ident.-Nr: DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------
