Hi Sachin,I too am facing the same problem as Donald during the assembly of Eclipse Plugin. I am building Revision 418691 of the trunk, using Sun JDK 1.4.2_08 & Maven 2.0.4 on a WinXP sp2 machine. By the way, I am interested in contributing to Geronimo Eclipse Plugin. Last year I have done some wor
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418906
]
John Sisson commented on GERONIMO-2161:
---
+1 : applied patch and tested build. Due to xmlbeans issue (which is a
separate problem not caused by this patch) It took a
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Lots of process...
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest version of the
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418883
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2161:
#&@%, this won't work exactly asis, because openejb depends on G and G depends
on openejb.
This build is so convoluted.
FYI, I nuked the old comment in favor of the new one with better
formatting.
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=all ]
Jason Dillon updated GERONIMO-2161:
---
Comm
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=all ]
Jason Dillon updated GERONIMO-2161:
---
Comment: was deleted
> [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
> --
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418877
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2161:
Here is the latest patch... which includes several other fixes.
{noformat}
rm -rf ~/.m2/repository
{noformat}
Build opene
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=all ]
Jason Dillon updated GERONIMO-2161:
---
Attachment: GERONIMO-2161-v2.patch
Here is the latest patch... which includes several other fixes.
{noformat}
rm -rf ~/.m2/repository
{noformat}
Buil
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Lots of process...
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest version of the
patch then they sh
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Lots of process...
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest version of the
patch then they should change the status t
Ahh, a little bell went off in my head. When we were in CTR mode we
never really had code related votes, per se. That's why I don't recall
the committer/PMC duality w/ respect to code changes. I now realize how
RTC brings out this distinction.
Regards,
Alan
Aaron Mulder wrote:
If the po
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1563?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-1563:
---
Summary: [RTC] Make the JACC implementation pluggable (was: Make the JACC
implementation pluggable)
> [RTC] Make the JACC implementation pluggable
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1563?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-1563:
---
Attachment: GERONIMO-1563-step2.1-v4.diff
GERONIMO-1563-step2.1-v4-openejb.diff
Version that uses substitution groups in the schemas an
If the policy is that only PMC votes count for *everything*, then I
think we should abolish the position of committer. Having a status of
"allowed to commit bug fixes only" does not make sense to me.
If we intend to return to CTR at some point, then committer probably
makes sense, but I think we
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please read Ken's original email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as not considering commiters votes binding, this has never been
the way Geronimo was run.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
One of the issues I see with the current process we have for
changes under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches
are pending RTC.
Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way o
Okay, I will try to set it up in a few...
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:43 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Go for it. You just need to add the root pom of openejb. Login,
then click "Add Maven 2.0 Project" and use https://svn.codehaus.org/
blah/blah/openejb2/pom.xml as the pom url.
-David
On J
Go for it. You just need to add the root pom of openejb. Login,
then click "Add Maven 2.0 Project" and use https://svn.codehaus.org/
blah/blah/openejb2/pom.xml as the pom url.
-David
On Jul 2, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Can we get Ci to build and deploy artifacts from the openej
Anyone know where there are duplicate srcs under magicGball?
Looks like this is to support m1 and m2 builds.
I hope this is not the only reason. If it is, then I gotta say this
is one of the harmful things to a slow incremental overlapping m1 and
m2 build system. I still think that we shou
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoa!
I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I
know I
committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1
PMC member
looked at it. And that took over
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418867
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2161:
The war/jspc bits were fixed in my workspace yesterday, as well as several
other issues.
Its not easy to fix and the repo
Sadly, I think RTC is shifting Geronimo from being a meritocracy to
being a bureaucracy.
I completely agree with this statement.
And only things get done if you have friends in the PMC. I've seen
several folks say RTC "Has been as success", and while yes, it has
increased communicatio, I
Can we get Ci to build and deploy artifacts from the openejb2 m2
build with these new groupId's so that the G m2 build can start using
them?
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:45 PM, David Blevins wrote:
That's cool. That's what we're using in the 3 branch.
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:20 PM, David
This looks very reasonable.
--jason
I'm a Jira admin so I have dug up the work flow that we're
currently using. Here's what I think we're proposing.
Regards,
Alan
It should be more than possible to have a decoupled OpenEJB codebase that plugs into Geronimo while at the same time have these projects exists in the same community.--jasonOn Jul 2, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be separ
On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Jason, IIUC, Mohammed is asking if it is not better to have OpenEJB separate from Geronimo, not together. Your plus one seems to be at odds w/ your subsequent statements. Am I misunderstanding something?Sorry... my +1 is for the proposal.I've s
I was never suggesting to not use the assembly plugin, but to use the
dependency plugin instead of a custom car installer plugin.
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Inline -
On 7/1/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why can't the dependency plugin be use
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-2161:
---
Attachment: GERONIMO-2161-configs-v1.1.sub.patch
This is a patch on just configs (apply from root) that updates the openejb
groupId to org.openejb and
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418864
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2161:
Patch applies fine for me.
mvn -Dstage=bootstrap && mvn, the bootstrap works but the mvn fails due to the
using plugin in
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoa!
I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I
committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC
member
looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes.
That's cool. That's what we're using in the 3 branch.
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
The contents of the m1 and m2 build openejb jars are necessarily
somewhat different, so it's desirable that they have different
names: otherwise the geronimo m2 configs build tends to pick
On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please read Ken's original email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
As far as not considering commiters votes binding, this has never been
the way Geronimo was run. If things have changed a
The contents of the m1 and m2 build openejb jars are necessarily
somewhat different, so it's desirable that they have different names:
otherwise the geronimo m2 configs build tends to pick up m1 openejb
jars. I think the easiest way to do this is to give the m2 jars m2
style groupIds. To
Everyone, please note that Mohammed is responding to an email from
December 3, 2005. The vote is *over*.
Here is that thread for reference: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
t=11335933571&r=1&w=2
If there are questions on the status of OpenEJB's move to the
incubator, the following thre
I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo. However, it
is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
strong reliance
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Mohammed Nour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
Geronimo, as
to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
It is and it will end up as
Jason, IIUC, Mohammed is asking if it is not better to have OpenEJB
separate from Geronimo, not together. Your plus one seems to be at
odds w/ your subsequent statements. Am I misunderstanding something?
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
+1
Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geroni
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-644?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-644:
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Serialized form of GBeans objects must each declare SUID
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-438?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-438:
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Deployer.deploy arguments inconsistent
> --
>
> Key: GERONIMO-438
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-630?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-630:
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Allow for exclusion dependencies
>
>
> Key: GERONIMO-630
> U
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1991?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1991:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Change "configuration" to "module" in java classes
> --
>
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1694?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1694:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Improve Serviceability of Geronimo
> --
>
> Key: GERONIMO-1694
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1335?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1335:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Create issues for making the plugins run in more ways
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1637?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1637:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Add support for version ranges
> --
>
> Key: GERONIMO-1637
> U
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-770?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-770:
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: More then one configuration mananger was
> found in kernel
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1808?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1808:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Replace AbstractName with URI
> -
>
> Key: GERONIMO-1808
> URL
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1987?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1987:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Change "configuration" to "module"
> --
>
> Key: GERONIMO-1987
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1807?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1807:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Remove uses of ObjectName from core server
> --
>
> Key: GE
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-3?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated XBEAN-3:
---
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> XBean generator fails when parsing JDK 5 source files with annotations
> -
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1781?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1781:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> FileSystemRepository not able to handle entry with version number which is a
> single digit
> -
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1858?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1858:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> Bootstrap configuation should not be stopable from the configuation manager
> --
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1418?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1418:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> allow user to specify deployment targets by "nickname"
> ---
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1816?page=all ]
Dain Sundstrom updated GERONIMO-1816:
-
Assign To: (was: Dain Sundstrom)
> XML based serialized configurations
> ---
>
> Key: GERONIMO-1816
>
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only are
developers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it that
only committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not
easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive for
lurk
We need to delete target/repository to preserve the work done by
the earlier operation (car:dependencies). The M2 plugin will also have
code to delete this directory. Since we run both M1 and M2 builds and
the generated plans are different for each, it is necessary to delete
the target director
On Jul 1, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
This is only for bootstrapping the server then?
It would be very good to eliminate this configuration.
Better IMO to just soak up everything in lib/*.jar.
That doesn't work because the lib dir contains the jars for
deployment and the server
Please read Ken's original email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
As far as not considering commiters votes binding, this has never been
the way Geronimo was run. If things have changed and the PMC has
decided that this is the new way to go
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2066?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha updated GERONIMO-2066:
-
Attachment: openejb.patch
Until openejb jars built by M2 build are available, the openejb must be built
locally. This patch is required
Inline -
On 7/1/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why can't the dependency plugin be used to install the car files?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by the dependency plugin.
http://mojo.codehaus.org/dependency-maven-plugin/
It basically handles copying (or unpacking) artifacts and
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2067?page=comments#action_12418852
]
Anita Kulshreshtha commented on GERONIMO-2067:
--
Please note - The openejb jars generated by M1 build can not be used. Openejb
must use geronimo jars with
o.a
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2067?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha updated GERONIMO-2067:
-
Attachment: applications.patch
configs.patch
configs.log
--Geronimo must use openejb 2.2. A new openej
Inline -
On 7/1/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aight... well lets get it working asis for now...
I think we don't need to run the assembly plugin twice to get to the
same place, but we can fix that once something is working.
I spoke to Jesse about this problem and how we can fix
On Jul 2, 2006, at 1:43 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 6/6/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'll work on a patch tomorrow. I appreciate your concern but the
proposed names/paths are shorter than or the same as the current ones
in the m2 migration :-)
Hey Dave,
Has it been done?
Anita, I don't think we should exclude the jars from including the
META-INF/maven dirs while being created. These jars end up in the
maven repo locally and remotely. They must be there for some reason.
We must exclude them from being extracted. This is what the 2 step
execution aims to acheive.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2163?page=comments#action_12418850
]
Gianny Damour commented on GERONIMO-2163:
-
The Geronimo patch is to be applied against the Geronimo 1.1 branch.
> WADI Integration for Jetty
>
Hi,
I have been working on a second integration attempt of WADI and I am
posting here a high-level description of the current state of progress
such that people can jump in.
At this stage, this is a Jetty only attempt and I do believe that the
same approach can be applied for Tomcat. The cur
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2163?page=all ]
Gianny Damour updated GERONIMO-2163:
Attachment: wadi-geronimo-integration-preview.patch
WADI patch to integrate more nicely with Geronimo.
> WADI Integration for Jetty
> --
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2163?page=all ]
Gianny Damour updated GERONIMO-2163:
Attachment: geronimo-wadi-integration-preview.patch
Geronimo patch to integration WADI.
> WADI Integration for Jetty
> --
>
WADI Integration for Jetty
--
Key: GERONIMO-2163
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2163
Project: Geronimo
Type: New Feature
Security: public (Regular issues)
Components: Clustering
Reporter: Gianny Damour
Assigne
Prasad,
I am using rev 418587 and getting this error in console-standard.
What am I missing?
Thanks
Anita
[INFO]
[INFO] Building Geronimo :: Console :: Standard Portlets
[INFO]task-segment: [clean, install]
[INFO
Ok, +1 from me as I don't remember I have already voted.
Dave, when will the tally taken?
Jacek
On 7/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 - Don't think my vote counts...but I am showing my support anyways ;-)
Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't i
+1 - Don't think my vote counts...but I am showing my support anyways ;-)
Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo,
> as to have it work inside or outside Ge
Hi Jacek,On 7/2/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Whoa!>> I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I> committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member
> looked at it. And that to
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418841
]
Jacek Laskowski commented on GERONIMO-2161:
---
Once I applied GERONIMO-2082, too the build went a little further up to the
following error. Without the two fixes (
On 7/2/06, Mohammed Nour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo, as
to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
It is and it will end up as such. It's an independent
+1Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geronimo developers, so it really makes sense to bring these two codebases together.I don't see any problem with OpenEJB coming together with Geronimo regarding to allow others to use the OpenEJB core w/o the rest of Geronimo. I believe that one of the key driv
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418839
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2161:
I think if you run the build from the module that freaks out with xmlbeans then
it will pass, then you can try again from
Hi All...
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
On 12/3/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2082?page=comments#action_12418838
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2082:
FYI, the other patch that I recommend people vote though (GERONIMO-2161) will
fix this problem. The xmlbeans issue is not
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2082?page=comments#action_12418836
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2082:
It is a complete waste of everyones time to try and build up a grand unified
patch set to get m2 working.
There will be s
On 6/6/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'll work on a patch tomorrow. I appreciate your concern but the
proposed names/paths are shorter than or the same as the current ones
in the m2 migration :-)
Hey Dave,
Has it been done? Which JIRA issue is this? If it's been abandoned,
your
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2082?page=comments#action_12418835
]
Jacek Laskowski commented on GERONIMO-2082:
---
It seems to be a chicken-and-egg problem. I've tested it out in a clean
environment (no ~/.m2, but the xmlbeans jars
Then exclude them from being extracted.
--jason
On Jul 1, 2006, at 8:13 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Here is why we had to exclude them from the wars and rars -
http://www.nabble.com/M2-%3A-build-on-Windows-tf1803375.html#a4914787
Cheers
Anita
--- Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did not fix it... but it has started to go away... not sure why yet.
I think we need to get a common repo withy these new changes to
resync and move on to the next hurdle.
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:57 AM, David Jencks wrote:
This is the xmlbeans/stax problem. It might be that either
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418834
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2161:
Baby steps...
> [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
>
1/ Why has the version tag been added? Doesn't M2 take care of it?
org.apache.geronimo.modules
geronimo-security-builder
+${pom.version}
m2 dose not take care of this.
internal modules IMO should be defined with this additional version
el
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418833
]
Jacek Laskowski commented on GERONIMO-2161:
---
Yes, we will, but if it's RTCed, shouldn't it depend on another RTCed patch? It
would be much clearer.
> [RTC] Remo
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2080?page=comments#action_12418832
]
Jacek Laskowski commented on GERONIMO-2080:
---
Where's the page in Geronimo documentation? I think we've got enough to start
with, haven't we? I'd like the idea an
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418831
]
Jason Dillon commented on GERONIMO-2161:
This is the xmlbeans issue that was talked about before. Waiting for David J
to get the poms updated.
Nothing I can do a
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote:
> [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root
pom.xml
>
-
--
>
> Key: GERONIMO-2161
> URL:
This is the xmlbeans/stax problem. It might be that either you or
jason has a fixed xmlbeans plugin.
david jencks
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Jacek Laskowski (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?
page=comments#action_12418829 ]
Jacek Laskowski commented
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161?page=comments#action_12418829
]
Jacek Laskowski commented on GERONIMO-2161:
---
Tested and got the following build error. I'll give it a shot again with no
~/.m2 local repo.
{noformat}
[EMAIL PRO
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whoa!
I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I
committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member
looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine
how long it would
On 7/2/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the PMC interpretation stands, does that mean the only privileges
of a committer who's not on the PMC are to commit bug fixes?
Yes. That's why I and other think it's so painful and *may* slow down
development, but at the same increase mailin
On 7/2/06, Jason Dillon (JIRA) wrote:
> [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
> ---
>
> Key: GERONIMO-2161
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2161
> Pro
95 matches
Mail list logo
