[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects

> I assume, repositories under https://github.com/javaee will remain there...


This would be the ideal solution, as I see it. Hopefully Oracle agrees that there is no burden to retain the projects on GitHub, including GitHub pages sites in an archive form, since there's some useful stuff in there that would be a shame to lose.


In particular, I am constantly surprised by encountering people who use very old versions of Java EE, so these resources are often very useful for those maintaining legacy projects.


Thanks,

Mike Croft

Java Middleware Consultant

Payara Services Limited

 

Payara Server: Derived from GlassFish with 24/7 Production Support
W: www.payara.fish | T: +44 207 754 0481 ; +1 415 523 0175 | Twitter: @Payara_Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payara Services LimitedUnit 11, Malvern Hills Science ParkGeraldine RoadMalvernWorcestershireWR14 3SZ


From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 15 January 2018 08:51:48
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
 
I assume, repositories under https://github.com/javaee will remain there, even if they could some day be "archived" in GitHub sense, that makes them read-only without the ability to push or murge any further.

So JSF on the level of Java EE 8 etc. should be in the JavaEE organization, if everything was moved over properly from java.net.

Werner


On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:29 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org> wrote:
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
        ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ee4j-community-owner@xxxxxxxxxrg

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Werner Keil)
   2. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (arjan tijms)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:01:48 +0100
From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
        Projects
Message-ID:
        <CAAGawe1AqCzeY=vzv0JHWtixdMQuNNHTmmjDACpFVXaZLv99hQ@xxxxxxxail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification. Although Oracle representatives or Spec Leads
confirmed they do not seek major updates to Java EE standards now placed
under the EE4J umbrella, there could be some major issues or bugs the
original codebase (through the Maintenance Lead or in some cases former EG
Members who signed the OCA) must address to fix them in products and
solutions based on Java EE 8.

So it is more or less a fork even if critical bugs may be fixed in both,
but it would rarely be via an actual PR from one repository to the other.
That is the only way one might see them connected.

Regards,

Werner


On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:52 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org> wrote:

> Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
>         ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
>       (Mike Milinkovich)
>    2. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Mrinal Kanti)
>    3. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Markus KARG)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:08:16 -0500
> From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>
> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
>         Projects
> Message-ID:
>         <8216eaf0-196d-c72d-0d83-6591a8bbeec8@eclipse-foundation.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 2018-01-14 11:21 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
> >
> >     On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
> >>     When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of
> >>     the initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions
> >>     were released under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also
> >>     be used under EPL, doesn't that require consent from ALL initial
> >>     contributors?
> >
> >     Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement
> >     which provides Sun/Oracle with joint /ownership/ of the
> >     contributions. All necessary consents and licensing issues have
> >     been taken care of.
> >
> >
> > Yes, joint ownership doesn't diminish the importance of consent from
> > those initial contributors. Thanks for your assurance that it has been
> > taken care of.
>
> Mrinal,
>
> I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
>
> By providing joint ownership at the time of contribution, all necessary
> consents to re-licensing were provided at the time of contribution.
> Sections 2 and 4 of the Oracle Contributor Agreement
> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf> make this clear.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/
> 20180114/a5f26d9d/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:48:34 +0530
> From: Mrinal Kanti <mrinal.kanti@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
>         Projects
> Message-ID:
>         <CAAenm-9u29ZsGgUkXYWBp9nRqjjsoX=pSzZF
> 1Etds4pi4hmWnQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks Mike for clarifying this. The OCA FAQ
> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-faq-405384.pdf> clearly accounts
> for
> this scenario in simpler terms. So I see indemnification should not be
> required as long as OCA was signed by all initial contributors.
>
> Regards,
> Mrinal
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Mike Milinkovich <
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-01-14 11:21 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
> >>
> >> When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the
> >> initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were released
> >> under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL,
> >> doesn't that require consent from ALL initial contributors?
> >>
> >>
> >> Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which
> >> provides Sun/Oracle with joint *ownership* of the contributions. All
> >> necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, joint ownership doesn't diminish the importance of consent from
> those
> > initial contributors. Thanks for your assurance that it has been taken
> care
> > of.
> >
> > Mrinal,
> >
> > I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
> >
> > By providing joint ownership at the time of contribution, all necessary
> > consents to re-licensing were provided at the time of contribution.
> > Sections 2 and 4 of the Oracle Contributor Agreement
> > <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf> make this clear.
> > --
> > Mike Milinkovich
> > mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> > (m) +1.613.220.3223
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ee4j-community mailing list
> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> > from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/
> 20180114/7f576a7d/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:52:18 +0100
> From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
>         Projects
> Message-ID: <010201d38d60$6e775ed0$4b661c70$@eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I wonder whether this is actually needed for _historic_ commits: The EF
> does not claim the copyright for the _history_, but only lists (correctly!)
> the files as they had been back then, with the licence they had been
> published under. I do not see any legal problems, actually, as the past
> connot be modified, and as Oracle was the sole owner. It will simply look
> like an owner change and licence change when comparing Oracle's last commit
> with EF's first one, which is the complete truth.
>
>
>
> From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
> Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:21
> To: EE4J community discussions
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Still I do not see the difference between the _latest_ commit and any
> other commit actually. The OCAs had been signed for those commits, too, and
> the licence was pretty much the same back then already. So what
> _additional_ work has to be done exactly for _each_ commit?
>
>
>
> Amongst other things: change all the file headers to the new licenses and
> copyright notices.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
> Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:06
> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
>
>
>
> On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>
> When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the initial
> contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were released under
> GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL, doesn't that
> require consent from ALL initial contributors?
>
>
> Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which
> provides Sun/Oracle with joint ownership of the contributions. All
> necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.
>
>
>
>
>
> I assume that Oracle would have cleared all license related issues but
> want to know if it would suffice for indemnification should the need ever
> arise in future.
>
>
> What indemnification? No open source license past, present or future
> provides an indemnification.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do we have any provision for tracking initial contributor consent
> publicly, just to be on the safe side?
>
> No, as none is required.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/
> 20180114/82e7ec93/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>
>
> End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 5, Issue 21
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180114/33735010/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:29:15 +0000
From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
        Projects
Message-ID:
        <CAE=-AhBHRR85g+iCfJy8PK6jMw+EhFiEjupKNs3XjCHbX+GNVg@xxxxxxxail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Sunday, January 14, 2018, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Although Oracle representatives or Spec
> Leads confirmed they do not seek major updates to Java EE standards now
> placed under the EE4J umbrella, there could be some major issues or bugs
> the original codebase (through the Maintenance Lead or in some cases former
> EG Members who signed the OCA) must address to fix them in products and
> solutions based on Java EE 8.
>

I do wonder a bit how that would work. Both EE 7 and EE 8 are ?current?
products. If I?d like to fix a bug in JSF 2.2 from EE 7, how would that be
done generally speaking?

As the current Mojarra 2.2 branch (state) wouldn?t exist in the transferred
code, would a request to Oracle be done then to publish a new version?

Related to this, are the existing Maven coordinates for various products
(like Mojarra) transferred, or would Eclipse Mojarra have to be published
using new coordinates?

Kind regards,
Arjan



>
> So it is more or less a fork even if critical bugs may be fixed in both,
> but it would rarely be via an actual PR from one repository to the other.
> That is the only way one might see them connected.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:52 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
>>         ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>         https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
>>       (Mike Milinkovich)
>>    2. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Mrinal Kanti)
>>    3. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Markus KARG)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:08:16 -0500
>> From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>
>> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
>>         Projects
>> Message-ID:
>>         <8216eaf0-196d-c72d-0d83-6591a8bbeec8@eclipse-foundation.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> On 2018-01-14 11:21 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>> >>     When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of
>> >>     the initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions
>> >>     were released under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also
>> >>     be used under EPL, doesn't that require consent from ALL initial
>> >>     contributors?
>> >
>> >     Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement
>> >     which provides Sun/Oracle with joint /ownership/ of the
>> >     contributions. All necessary consents and licensing issues have
>> >     been taken care of.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, joint ownership doesn't diminish the importance of consent from
>> > those initial contributors. Thanks for your assurance that it has been
>> > taken care of.
>>
>> Mrinal,
>>
>> I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
>>
>> By providing joint ownership at the time of contribution, all necessary
>> consents to re-licensing were provided at the time of contribution.
>> Sections 2 and 4 of the Oracle Contributor Agreement
>> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf> make this clear.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Milinkovich
>> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
>> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/
>> attachments/20180114/a5f26d9d/attachment.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:48:34 +0530
>> From: Mrinal Kanti <mrinal.kanti@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
>>         Projects
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CAAenm-9u29ZsGgUkXYWBp9nRqjjsoX=pSzZF1Etds4pi4hmWnQ@mail.
>> gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Thanks Mike for clarifying this. The OCA FAQ
>> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-faq-405384.pdf> clearly accounts
>> for
>> this scenario in simpler terms. So I see indemnification should not be
>> required as long as OCA was signed by all initial contributors.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mrinal
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Mike Milinkovich <
>> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2018-01-14 11:21 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the
>> >> initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were
>> released
>> >> under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL,
>> >> doesn't that require consent from ALL initial contributors?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which
>> >> provides Sun/Oracle with joint *ownership* of the contributions. All
>> >> necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, joint ownership doesn't diminish the importance of consent from
>> those
>> > initial contributors. Thanks for your assurance that it has been taken
>> care
>> > of.
>> >
>> > Mrinal,
>> >
>> > I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
>> >
>> > By providing joint ownership at the time of contribution, all necessary
>> > consents to re-licensing were provided at the time of contribution.
>> > Sections 2 and 4 of the Oracle Contributor Agreement
>> > <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf> make this clear.
>> > --
>> > Mike Milinkovich
>> > mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
>> > (m) +1.613.220.3223
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ee4j-community mailing list
>> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>> > from this list, visit
>> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>> >
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/
>> attachments/20180114/7f576a7d/attachment.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:52:18 +0100
>> From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
>>         Projects
>> Message-ID: <010201d38d60$6e775ed0$4b661c70$@eu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I wonder whether this is actually needed for _historic_ commits: The EF
>> does not claim the copyright for the _history_, but only lists (correctly!)
>> the files as they had been back then, with the licence they had been
>> published under. I do not see any legal problems, actually, as the past
>> connot be modified, and as Oracle was the sole owner. It will simply look
>> like an owner change and licence change when comparing Oracle's last commit
>> with EF's first one, which is the complete truth.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces
>> @eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
>> Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:21
>> To: EE4J community discussions
>> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Still I do not see the difference between the _latest_ commit and any
>> other commit actually. The OCAs had been signed for those commits, too, and
>> the licence was pretty much the same back then already. So what
>> _additional_ work has to be done exactly for _each_ commit?
>>
>>
>>
>> Amongst other things: change all the file headers to the new licenses and
>> copyright notices.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces
>> @eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
>> Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:06
>> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>>
>> When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the
>> initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were released
>> under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL,
>> doesn't that require consent from ALL initial contributors?
>>
>>
>> Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which
>> provides Sun/Oracle with joint ownership of the contributions. All
>> necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I assume that Oracle would have cleared all license related issues but
>> want to know if it would suffice for indemnification should the need ever
>> arise in future.
>>
>>
>> What indemnification? No open source license past, present or future
>> provides an indemnification.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do we have any provision for tracking initial contributor consent
>> publicly, just to be on the safe side?
>>
>> No, as none is required.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Milinkovich
>> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
>> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-community mailing list
>> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>> from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/
>> attachments/20180114/82e7ec93/attachment.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-community mailing list
>> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>> from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>>
>>
>> End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 5, Issue 21
>> *********************************************
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180114/413b3d78/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 5, Issue 22
*********************************************