Re: [VOTE] Removing author tags (was RE: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?))

ebruary 2004 15:56 To: Cactus Developers List Subject: Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?) [snip] Also, the ASF board announced that it would prefer to see @autor tags removed from Java sources. Is this something we should do for the release? I for one agree with the reason

LICENSE and NOTICE files for ASL 2.0 ?(was RE: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?))

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 February 2004 15:56 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?) [snip] > > About the new license. As far as I understand,

[VOTE] Removing author tags (was RE: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?))

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 February 2004 15:56 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?) [snip] > Also, the ASF board announced that it would prefer

Re: 1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)

Am 28.02.2004 um 12:22 schrieb Vincent Massol: One last try to convince you that we should release 1.6. If I do not succeed we'll deliver a 1.5.1... :-) Reasons: 1/ The Cactus versioning is as follows: major.minor.patch => 1.6 would be a minor release. 1.5.1 would mean a patch release but it's not

1.6 or 1.5.1? (was RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?)

a 1.6 release. What do you think? :-) Thanks -Vincent > -Original Message- > From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 February 2004 06:20 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1? > > Seems there are enough bug fixe

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

k? Thanks -Vincent -Original Message- From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 February 2004 11:30 To: 'Cactus Developers List' Subject: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1? Hi cactus committers, What would you think about releasing an interim Cactus 1.5.1 release containin

RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

; From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 February 2004 11:30 > To: 'Cactus Developers List' > Subject: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1? > > Hi cactus committers, > > What would you think about releasing an interim Cactus 1.5.1 release > containing eve

RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

Good point. I'll try the upgrade later today. Thanks -Vincent > -Original Message- > From: Max Kutny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 February 2004 12:39 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1? > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at

RE: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 February 2004 12:59 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1? > > Am 27.02.2004 um 11:30 schrieb Vincent Massol: > > Hi cactus committers, &

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

Am 27.02.2004 um 11:30 schrieb Vincent Massol: Hi cactus committers, What would you think about releasing an interim Cactus 1.5.1 release containing everything we have in CVS HEAD? Here's the list of changes since the 1.5 release: http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/changes.html#release_changes I thi

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:30:03AM +0100, Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi cactus committers, > > What would you think about releasing an interim Cactus 1.5.1 release > containing everything we have in CVS HEAD? > > Here's the list of changes since the 1.5 release: > http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/ch

[VOTE] Releasing Cactus 1.5.1?

Hi cactus committers, What would you think about releasing an interim Cactus 1.5.1 release containing everything we have in CVS HEAD? Here's the list of changes since the 1.5 release: http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/changes.html#release_changes I think we have enough to warrant a minor release.