ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 李玉珏@163 <18624049...@163.com>
Subject Re: Ignite Voting Process
Date Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:05:10 GMT
Great!

在 16/1/1 02:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan 写道:
> I tend to agree with Raul.
>
> We have been anal-retentive to a fault with regard to LGPL, instead of
> focusing on usability. Our users are already required to take a conscious
> step to include LGPL modules into Ignite builds, so there is no implicit
> “drag-in”, as Raul mentioned.
>
> I would vote for publishing all Ignite modules to Maven, without exception.
>
> D.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Raul Kripalani <raulk@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brane,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We'd be publishing modules that can't be used without the LGPL
>>> components. I'm not sure how that stands WRT our policies but I can't
>>> see how it would be a service to our users to actively nudge them
>>> towards using restrictive-licensed code.
>>>
>> The ASF policies specify that, as long as our components are optional and
>> not needed by the core project, we can publish them, obviously *without*
>> packaging the LGPL binary nor implicitly "dragging it in" during the build.
>> This can be achieved with a 'runtime' scope in Maven.
>>
>> It does make a huge difference to the end user of these 3 modules – being
>> able to reference ignite-hibernate and simply having to manually drop in
>> the Hibernate dependency vs. having to: (1) check out the source, (2) run
>> the build, (3) publish the artifacts in their corporate Nexus repo, etc. +
>> having to do this *for each release*.
>>
>> *Raúl Kripalani*
>> PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
>> Messaging Engineer
>> http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
>> http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
>>



Mime
View raw message