On 13/06/07, Luc Maisonobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torsten Curdt a écrit :
But seriously: be realistic. Those people building the releases from
will have subversion on their machine. And what can be simpler than a
one-liner to checkout the sources? Even downloading it from an apache
mirror
What would you think - how many percent of the developers that
require
to build a project from the source have no http access to the
internet?
Well, for jci I will personally send them a tar of the checkout
- if
they have email :-p
Source is not only needed for building the binary;
On 14/06/07, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you think - how many percent of the developers that
require
to build a project from the source have no http access to the
internet?
Well, for jci I will personally send them a tar of the checkout
- if
they have email :-p
But seriously: be realistic. Those people building the releases from
will have subversion on their machine. And what can be simpler than a
one-liner to checkout the sources? Even downloading it from an apache
mirror is more work.
People may have subversion but may not be able to use it.
For
Torsten Curdt a écrit :
But seriously: be realistic. Those people building the releases from
will have subversion on their machine. And what can be simpler than a
one-liner to checkout the sources? Even downloading it from an apache
mirror is more work.
People may have subversion but may not
So you are saying +1 for the assembly release ...but I don't get the
who needs what part.
What I meant was that I did not see it as a big user inconvenience to
bundle all of the jars into a single release, since they are
individually small. So, yes, I am +1 on putting together an assembly
and
I'll prepare the assembly distributions and hope to get your +1
then :)
Of course! I just need to be able to build it first :)
http://people.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/jci/1.0-RC4/dists/
Bah ...just found another problem. I rebuild and call a vote on RC4.
This is driving _me_
Torsten Curdt wrote:
See above ...I think subversion is our source distribution. I don't
really see a point in providing a classic source distribution. But
maybe that's too much change for now ;)
Yes, too much for me at least. In theory, voting on a tag and
pointing users there to get
On 6/10/07, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you are saying +1 for the assembly release ...but I don't get the
who needs what part.
What I meant was that I did not see it as a big user inconvenience to
bundle all of the jars into a single release, since they are
individually
On 04.06.2007, at 06:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
Sigs and hashes check fine, but I had to grab your key from
http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/bcel/KEYS. Make sure to add this
under JCI somewhere (see below)
It's there
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/jci/tags/1.0-
On 6/4/07, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04.06.2007, at 06:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
Sigs and hashes check fine, but I had to grab your key from
http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/bcel/KEYS. Make sure to add this
under JCI somewhere (see below)
It's there
On 6/2/07, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Votes ...someone?
Should I provide a tgz so it's easier to grab?
snip/
Not really for that purpose, but it would be good to have a complete
source assembly.
I'm not set to examine multi-module releases ATM. I've looked at these
in other
Sigs and hashes check fine, but I had to grab your key from
http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/bcel/KEYS. Make sure to add this
under JCI somewhere (see below)
* I think that for consistency and at least to provide a definitive
location for the release artifacts, KEYS, and release notes, we
Votes ...someone?
Should I provide a tgz so it's easier to grab?
cheers
--
Torsten
On 31.05.2007, at 03:49, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Only pom and license header changes since RC2. We are voting on the
actual binaries for the release.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jci/
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Votes ...someone?
Should I provide a tgz so it's easier to grab?
cheers
--
Torsten
I had a look at some of the jars, and they all look fine. But I am
wondering if you will provide source and binary distributions like the
other commons components do. These are the
On 02.06.2007, at 16:20, Oliver Heger wrote:
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Votes ...someone?
Should I provide a tgz so it's easier to grab?
cheers
--
Torsten
I had a look at some of the jars, and they all look fine. But I am
wondering if you will provide source and binary distributions like
Torsten Curdt wrote:
On 02.06.2007, at 16:20, Oliver Heger wrote:
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Votes ...someone?
Should I provide a tgz so it's easier to grab?
cheers
-- Torsten
I had a look at some of the jars, and they all look fine. But I am
wondering if you will provide source and binary
Only pom and license header changes since RC2. We are voting on the
actual binaries for the release.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jci/
http://people.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/jci/1.0-RC3/org/
apache/commons/commons-jci/1.0/
18 matches
Mail list logo
