Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's >>>>the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. >>> >>> >>>Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo in it for many >>>days? Like when you rename a jar but forget to update the >>>descriptor? >> >>because cocoon doesn't use *all* of that data, only parts. > > > Unfortunately Gump gets into trouble because of the parts Cocoon > doesn't use.
I know. > If you don't use any of the projects you define for jars in your repo, > maybe you better shouldn't define those projects at all? Instead nag > the Gump crew to turn them into installed packages. I personally wouldn't be against such a thing. >>>>Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers >>>>commit access to the cocoon project. >>> >>>Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that >>>grants rw to @gump for just that file, at least I think it allows >>>file-granularity. >> >>Even better. Can we do it or is it something that infra@ has to do? > > > Sylvain can, or I could, but I'd certainly prefer if the Coccon PMC > made the change. ok, I'll start a vote. -- Stefano.
