On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:30:42AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (Apologies if this is a dup, mailer problems abound this week)
> you Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> [jt]>> What needs to change? Do you see something specific? This
> paragraph from xml-commons/README.html:
> >
Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Let's work on this discussion for a bit and get more participants. If
> needed we might cross-post once to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get more folks to
> come look over here (I was impressed you all actually subscribed! I
> thought it was still edwin and sam and me!) I'm glad th
Has there been any progress on the shell for xdocs?
I have just joined this project, having started at Cocoon.
One of the things that i can help with is documentation.
However, i am a follower. When there is a shell for
documentation and a build.xml then i can help.
Yes Don, i too think that we sh
(Apologies if this is a dup, mailer problems abound this week)
you Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
[jt]>> What needs to change? Do you see something specific? This
paragraph from xml-commons/README.html:
> New modules generally shouldn't go in until at least two separate
> other
you Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
[jt]>> What needs to change? Do you see something specific? This
paragraph from xml-commons/README.html:
> New modules generally shouldn't go in until at least two separate
> other projects express interest in using the module. I think this is
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:37:14PM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
> Jeff continued:
> > Anyone in favour of officially making xml-commons' charter closer to
> > jakarta-commons?
>
> What needs to change? Do you see something specific?
This paragraph from xml-commons/README.html:
New modules gene
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Wohoo..
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I've gone ahead and 'bent' the new code rule for xml-commons
OK, it will help to kick-start the xml-commons project anyway :-)
It looks as though this list volume is starting to increase, so
fu
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
>> I agree, the list should be configured to require non-subscribers
e-mails
>> to be moderated. Volunteers, anyone?
>
>Fixed. However, there was no moderator configured for this list (cardinal
>sin!), so moderation bounces wouldn't have gone anywhere, so I assigned it
>
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I agree, the list should be configured to require non-subscribers e-mails
> to be moderated. Volunteers, anyone?
Fixed. However, there was no moderator configured for this list (cardinal
sin!), so moderation bounces wouldn't have gone anywhere, so I assigned
