+1,
Willem
On 2/24/11 4:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from being used as
a JAX-WS implementation for J2EE
containers.
List of issues:
https://issues.apac
+1.
Colm.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> +1
>
> Glen
>
> On 2/23/2011 6:23 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Sergey Beryozkin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>
+1
Glen
On 2/23/2011 6:23 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
+1
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
+1
thanks, Sergey
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
out, especially since 2.3.2
+1
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: 23 February 2011 20:31
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.3.3
We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventin
+1
Alessio
On 02/23/2011 09:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from being used as
a JAX-WS implementation for J2EE
containers.
List of issues:
https://issues.a
+1
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Freeman Fang wrote:
> +1
>
> Freeman
> On 2011-2-24, at 上午4:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get
>> 2.3.3 out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from
>> being used as a
+1
Freeman
On 2011-2-24, at 上午4:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should
get 2.3.3 out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing
it from being used as a JAX-WS implementation for J2EE
containers.
List of issues:
https://iss
+1
- Dennis
On 02/24/2011 09:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
> out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from being used
> as a JAX-WS implementation for J2EE
> containers.
>
>
> List of issue
+1
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:47 AM, UlhasBhole wrote:
> +1,
>
> -- Ulhas Bhole
> On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get
>> 2.3.3 out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from
>> being us
+1,
-- Ulhas Bhole
On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>
> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
> out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from being used
> as a JAX-WS implementation for J2EE
> containers.
>
>
> L
+1
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> +1
>
> thanks, Sergey
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>
>> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get
>> 2.3.3 out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from
+1
thanks, Sergey
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>
> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get 2.3.3
> out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from being used
> as a JAX-WS implementation for J2EE
> containers.
>
>
> Li
12 matches
Mail list logo