Hi,
The ApacheCon US 2008 conference is getting closer. If you are
interested in participating but would have a hard time financing the
trip, the Apache Travel Assistance Committee may be able to help you.
See below for their announcement about the financial support that the
Apache Software Founda
I'd doubt a petition by itself would make them change the policy.
Probably they no longer can afford time, money or other resource to support
"community" version of spring.
If they are trying to make a business out of it it is quite obvious that they
won't pop up asking for
"someone to take over
Rainer Pruy wrote:
> A clear statement along "only the most current release will receive
> maintenance efforts" would have been much easier and clearer (and
> would get broader acceptance by the community). That the whole thing
> was not put that way contributes to the impression that users should
Ralph Goers wrote:
> First, let me say that I don't think the Spring policy is going to end
> up being as bad as it was made out to be at first glance, although that
> may just be wishful thinking.
I have the same hopes but something tells me that it is only another
step into the direction of cl
First, let me say that I don't think the Spring policy is going to end
up being as bad as it was made out to be at first glance, although that
may just be wishful thinking. In any case, I think it is extremely
premature to talk about forking the code.
I think if you were to put yourself in th
Good call Reinhard, thanks!
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
I've perused the developer mail archive and the svn log but not found
anything about the background for this second implementation.
See http://cocoon.markmail.org/message/z63kh2sx3u4spxo
No wonder I didn't find it... 2004 is ancient histo
David Legg wrote:
> I've been examining the HTMLSerializer so that I can document it on Daisy.
>
> Initially, I was confused about what config options could be used and
> then it dawned on me that there are actually two different
> implementations! The default is to use:
>
> o.a.c.serialization
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 24.09.2008 00:00, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for
forks to appear that will provide open source bug fix
Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
>>> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
>>> window or worse go
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:17 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect
enough
> >> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remo
10 matches
Mail list logo