On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
[X] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
-Rahul
Wendy,
"should be addressed before the release" can include documentation, i.e. a note
in the release notes, on the web page, in the Wiki...
I suspect the root cause is in the root pom.xml
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/shale/framework/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup
Yes, using are the workaround tha
On 8/23/06, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue SHALE-258[1] is
very
frustrating and should be addressed before the release.
I think I know why it's happening, but I'm fairly sure that issue was
opened after 1.0.3 was tagged an
As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue SHALE-258[1] is
very frustrating
and should be addressed before the release. The undisclosed inclusion of
MyFaces 1.1.1 using Maven
cause strange and unexpected behavior. Thus resulting in very frustrate the
user/community.
[1] ht
+1
david
2006/8/22, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
+1
On 8/21/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 (Binding)
>
> On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following
files
> > have md5 and s
+1
On 8/21/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 (Binding)
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
> have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
> key. They
>From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (3) Vote
>
> Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on
> whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes
> we'll hold a quality vote later on.
>
> [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
+1 (Binding)
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm
a
On 8/20/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm ... on the stuff in the repository, Maven's "deploy" command is
> calculating and setting up the md5 and sha1 signatures without the
> filenames. I copied that style on the release
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm ... on the stuff in the repository, Maven's "deploy" command is
calculating and setting up the md5 and sha1 signatures without the
filenames. I copied that style on the release artifacts by manually
chopping the filenames off to match
On 8/20/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following
files
> have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code
signing
> key. ...
The PGP signatures
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. ...
The PGP signatures are good, but the .md5 and .sha1 checksums do not
include
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm
about to tag as APACHE_SHALE_1_0_3.
(1) Maven Snapshot Repository At A
13 matches
Mail list logo
