On 11/21/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i strongly recommend adding RELEASE_NOTES. these are an important form
> of guerrilla advertising. yes, tools like maven can generate lots of
> documentation about the release
On 11/22/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i strongly recommend adding RELEASE_NOTES. these are an important form
> of guerrilla advertising. yes, tools like maven can generate lots of
> documentation about the release
On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > anyone from maven around to explain the reasons behind this behaviour?
>>
>> I chatted with Brett about it a few days ago, and he said the problem is
Yeah. maybe.
Anyway, it will be difficult to fix until the maven guys take a look at
the bug.
I've raised a JIRA for that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-180
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? We
> had a recent
Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? We had
a recent discussion on this on the legal-discuss list. To quote Roy: [1]
We don't require headers on generated files because they are a pain
in the butt to generate. Headers are not required to preserve
copyright,
so th
On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i strongly recommend adding RELEASE_NOTES. these are an important form
of guerrilla advertising. yes, tools like maven can generate lots of
documentation about the release but this doesn't replace a
RELEASE_NOTES explaining the proje
Yep, I think maven has transformed those POM during release/deploy
process and removed Apache License headers. We just completed CXF
release preparation and run into the same issue.
Cheers,
Bo
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
They were in svn before the release has been performed by
the maven plugin.
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Yeah. maybe.
Anyway, it will be difficult to fix until the maven guys take a look at
the bug.
I've raised a JIRA for that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-180
What you probably could do in the meantime is to stick the license
comment inside of the project elemen
On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since these are generated files, must they have license headers?
>
>
> no
>
> however, i think that running preprocessors against the source in the
> re
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since these are generated files, must they have license headers?
no
however, i think that running preprocessors against the source in the
repository that strips license headers *is* an issue for me. IMO
sour
On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since these are generated files, must they have license headers?
no
however, i think that running preprocessors against the source in the
repository that strips license headers *is* an issue for me. IMO
source distributions should be simple
On 11/17/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ServiceMix community voted on and has approved to release ServiceMix
3.0.1-incubating.
We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
publish the release.
running RAT, there seem to be a *lot* of poms without licen
-repository/org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0.1-incubating/apache-servicemix-3.0.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.0.1/
The vote thread is available at
http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-ServiceMix-3.0.1-tf2629945s12049
13 matches
Mail list logo
