Good point. Let me check with Dan
Somerfield – that would be a lower impact way to address the issue.
From:
wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005
8:26 AM
To: WTP PMC communications
(including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)
Cc: WTP PMC communications
(including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions);
wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; Daniel Somerfield
Subject: Re: [wtp-pmc] FW: WTP PMC
requesting 1.0 release review scheduling
Tim,
I
assume we are talking about some Cactus runtime JARs that we want to
redistribute from the Apache site?
If
that is the case then can't we just list these as prerequisites? i.e. don't
redistribute them and tell users they need to download them
We
could also look at setting up an update manager site at Apache so users could
easily download the prereqs, i.e. packge the JARs as a Feature.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
|
"Tim Wagner"
<twagner@xxxxxxx>
Sent
by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/15/2005 09:45 AM
|
Please
respond to
"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and
Group discussions)"
|
|
|
To
|
"WTP PMC communications (including
coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)"
<wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
Daniel Somerfield <dsomerfi@xxxxxxx>
|
|
Subject
|
[wtp-pmc] FW: WTP PMC requesting 1.0 release
review scheduling
|
|
Update from Janet on the release review (fine in
general) and Cactus (not fine). On the PMC call this morning we will need to
discuss the contingency plan of removing and restoring it around the 1.0
release. Janet will continue her due diligence, but a mandatory 30 day Board
review period has been added to the policy, making it less likely that we can
get a pass in time even if there are no problems (and the message below
indicates there may be).
From: Janet Campbell
[mailto:janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:54 PM
To: Tim Wagner
Subject: RE: WTP PMC requesting 1.0 release review scheduling
Hi Tim,
I’m finding quite a few things in the scan for Cactus
that I’m going to need to follow up on. There are references to
GPL, LGPL, a Sun copyright with an indication that the code may be subject to
Sun patents, an indication that the project started out independent then went
to SourceForge and then went to Apache (this could pose difficulties from a
pedigree standpoint). That isn’t to say that I may not be able to
resolve these issues to our satisfaction, but it is going to take time.
Janet
From: Janet Campbell
[mailto:janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:48 PM
To: Tim Wagner
Cc: 'Bjorn Freeman-Benson'
Subject: RE: WTP PMC requesting 1.0 release review scheduling
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’ll
go over your contributions and status in greater detail tomorrow but believe we
are in good shape. I expect all submissions to be approved with the
exception of the cactus files outlined in your email of 10/25. These
files (with the exception of the Eclipse code file – aspectjrt) post due
diligence will need to be submitted to the Board for approval. All non
epl submissions going forward will need to be approved by the Board post due
diligence for inclusion in Eclipse. The fastest this can occur is
approximately a month and if any concerns are raised it would take longer
(until the concern was resolved). As a result, they will not likely be
approved in time for your 1.0 GA date of 12/16.
Regards,
Janet
Campbell_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc
