On 28/08/10 2:18 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
As a PMC I suggest that our rules should be:
1. Every release must include both the source and binaries built for
supported platforms. They can be packaged separately but must be made
avail
On Aug 27, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> our
> source package is mostly a svn snapshot (correct me if I'm wrong), and
> a recursive diff tool could compare the two easily.
Yes, it is the exact copy of the SVN tag contents (sans any SCM files, like
.svn or .git).
Andrus
I agree with some of it as a guideline and some of it as a rule.
The steps I took to determine if we had our licenses in order were
primarily against the dependencies used and dependencies bundled.
They needed to be properly recorded in the LICENSE and NOTICES file.
In practice, I think the prima
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> As a PMC I suggest that our rules should be:
>
> 1. Every release must include both the source and binaries built for
> supported platforms. They can be packaged separately but must be made
> available from the same download page.
Rule:
Hi Andrus,
Thanks for your help on this. We have decided, though, to use single
inheritance in this situation due to
performance concerns (want to minimize joins).
If we do use vertical inheritance in the future, I will let you know of
anything interesting (or challenging) we find.
thanks ag
Ari,
package-list file is included in the release docs. Are we skipping that somehow
during javadocs website rsync?
Andrus
On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Richner (JIRA) wrote:
> javadoc missing file package-list
> >>http://cayenne.apache.org/doc30/api/package-list<<
>
Hi Julia,
With a bit of tweaking of the model I was able to get a query like that:
SELECT t0.LAST_MODIFIED_TIME, t0.COLLECTION_TYPE_ID, t0.AUTO_OPEN_DATE,
t0.SNAPSHOT_DATE, t0.DESCRIPTION, t0.SUPT_APPROVAL_REQD, t0.LAST_MODIFIED_BY,
t0.ACTIVE_IND, t0.AUTO_CLOSE_DATE, t0.COLLECTION_NAME, t1.SCHO
