On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Kevan,
I'll work on it.
Cool. Thanks, Prasad.
--kevan
Kevan,
I'll work on it.
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/9/07, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
> other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
> issues so I'll
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
Thanks for your critical eyes.
OK. In my eyes, this vote has b
+1
Vamsi
On 6/9/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/
~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 1
+1
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections
+1 on releasing these specs.
Lin
Jarek Gawor wrote:
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless someone actually wants to try t
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
now (not it!) I think we s
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
now (not it!) I think we should release the existing stax, jacc and
activation specs.
Either that or delete the questionable scm sections since it doesn't
seem to be actually possible to get them right and release that.
th
I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
Thanks for your critical eyes.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications lo
On 6/11/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
Jacc: +1
scm section in pom.xml is wrong
Deployment : +1
scm section in pom.xml is wrong.
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the sun
explanatory comments in javax/se
On Jun 11, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
A couple of questions about the spec releases:
1) Why does activation-1.1 still have a trunk branch in svn?
It doesn't ... perhaps you have some local mods in the FS that kept
subversion from deleting it.
2) Why hasn't the javamail-1.4 s
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
Jacc: +1
Deployment : +1
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd
and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_
On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-
app_2_2.dtd and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also
scm
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd
and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is
missing in pom
I mentioned earlier that
Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
Jacc: +1
Deployment : +1
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the sun
explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd and
javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is missing
in pom
Stax:
A couple of questions about the spec releases:
1) Why does activation-1.1 still have a trunk branch in svn?
2) Why hasn't the javamail-1.4 spec been released? Geronimo has an
indirect dependency on the 1.4 spec through the javamail uber-jar, which
also needs to made into a release.
Rick
M
+1
The geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1-sources.jar has some extra source
files in it. But the binary looks ok.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these
+1
Joe
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the block
and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
Thanks
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monda
+1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
Thanks
+1
-dain
On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June
+1
Jarek
On 6/10/07, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 Binaries and source look good.
--kevan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Failures w
+1
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/10/07, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 Binaries and source look good.
--kevan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Please review the specifications located at http://
> people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>
> We are voting these in a block. Fa
+1 Binaries and source look good.
--kevan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Vo
+1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Oh yeah...here is my +1
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> Please review the specifications located at
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
>>
>> We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
>> block and others
Oh yeah...here is my +1
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes o
Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/
~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
Thanks
27 matches
Mail list logo
