Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Specs: interceptor 1.2 v1.1, el 2.2 v1.1, atinject 1.0 v1.1, annotation 1.3 v1.1, cdi 2.0 v1.1, jaxrs 2.1 v1.1, jbatch 1.0 v1.1, validation 2.0 v1.1, json 1.1 v1.1, jsonb 1

This was a good batch lol Le ven. 31 août 2018 à 21:32, Raymond Auge a écrit : > This vote has passed with 3 votes (3 binding). > > I will upload the artifacts ASAP. > > - Ray > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Raymond Auge > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> - Ray >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:29 AM,

Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Specs: interceptor 1.2 v1.1, el 2.2 v1.1, atinject 1.0 v1.1, annotation 1.3 v1.1, cdi 2.0 v1.1, jaxrs 2.1 v1.1, jbatch 1.0 v1.1, validation 2.0 v1.1, json 1.1 v1.1, jsonb 1

This vote has passed with 3 votes (3 binding). I will upload the artifacts ASAP. - Ray On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Raymond Auge wrote: > +1 > > - Ray > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >> +1 >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 30.08.2018 um 11:07 schrieb

Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Specs: interceptor 1.2 v1.1, el 2.2 v1.1, atinject 1.0 v1.1, annotation 1.3 v1.1, cdi 2.0 v1.1, jaxrs 2.1 v1.1, jbatch 1.0 v1.1, validation 2.0 v1.1, json 1.1 v1.1, jsonb 1

+1 - Ray On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > +1 > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 30.08.2018 um 11:07 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >: > > > > +1 > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > Le mar. 28 août 2018 à 19:30,

Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Specs: interceptor 1.2 v1.1, el 2.2 v1.1, atinject 1.0 v1.1, annotation 1.3 v1.1, cdi 2.0 v1.1, jaxrs 2.1 v1.1, jbatch 1.0 v1.1, validation 2.0 v1.1, json 1.1 v1.1, jsonb 1

+1 LieGrue, strub > Am 30.08.2018 um 11:07 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > +1 > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > Le mar. 28 août 2018 à 19:30, Raymond Auge a écrit > : > Hi, > > I'd like to call a vote on the release of the

Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Specs: interceptor 1.2 v1.1, el 2.2 v1.1, atinject 1.0 v1.1, annotation 1.3 v1.1, cdi 2.0 v1.1, jaxrs 2.1 v1.1, jbatch 1.0 v1.1, validation 2.0 v1.1, json 1.1 v1.1, jsonb 1

+1 Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book

[VOTE] Release Geronimo Specs: interceptor 1.2 v1.1, el 2.2 v1.1, atinject 1.0 v1.1, annotation 1.3 v1.1, cdi 2.0 v1.1, jaxrs 2.1 v1.1, jbatch 1.0 v1.1, validation 2.0 v1.1, json 1.1 v1.1, jsonb 1.0 v

Hi, I'd like to call a vote on the release of the following specs: *interceptor 1.2 v1.1* ** Sub-task * [GERONIMO-6628] - Apply Portable Java Contracts: Interceptor 1.2 * [GERONIMO-6635] - Consume Portable Java Contracts: Interceptor 1.2 *el 2.2 v1.1* ** Sub-task * [GERONIMO-6627] -

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

the jars, source and javadocs should contain the legal files, the resources have been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release those specs (another problem ?) -- Cheers, Guillaume

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

/specs-1.4 All the jars, source and javadocs should contain the legal files, the resources have been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release those specs (another problem

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: What do you mean by skipped version numbers and different formats ? By format, I meant the new, non-standard tags/specs-1.4 destination. By skipped version numbers -- the current released version of annotations is 1.0, the previous vote

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

On Feb 1, 2008 4:25 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: What do you mean by skipped version numbers and different formats ? By format, I meant the new, non-standard tags/specs-1.4 destination. By skipped version numbers -- the

[CLOSED][VOTE] Release the specs

and javadocs should contain the legal files, the resources have been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release those specs (another problem ?) There were some issues uncovered

[VOTE] Release the specs

been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release those specs (another problem ?) -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

and javadocs should contain the legal files, the resources have been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release those specs (another problem ?) Guillaume, We should not be releasing

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

, the resources have been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release those specs (another problem ?) -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Blog: http

Re: [VOTE] Release the specs

/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/specs-1.4 All the jars, source and javadocs should contain the legal files, the resources have been fixed in the jsp spec and the servlet legal files have been updated with w3c license. Please double check and vote: [ ] +1 Release the specs [ ] -1 Do not release

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

+1 go for it On Dec 5, 2005, at 1:31 PM, David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of

VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of org.apache.geronimo.specs but if this causes too many build/tck problems

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[X] go for it [ ] don't care [ ] no, because.

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[+1] go for it Aaron On 12/5/05, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

+1 go for it -dain On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:31 AM, David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:31 AM, David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[+1] go for it On 12/5/05 1:31 PM, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[X] go for it -David On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:31 AM, David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[X] go for it David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of org.apache.geronimo.specs but if this

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

+1 sooner the better :) David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of org.apache.geronimo.specs

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

On 12/5/05, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1 groupIds of org.apache.geronimo.specs but if this causes too

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[+1 ] go for itOn 12/5/05, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in anaccessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them tom1 and m2 non-snapshot repos.We will make a best-effort attempt tohave m1 groupIds of

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

[X] go for it John

Re: VOTE: release our specs at version 1.0 now

+1, go for it --jason On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:31 AM, David Jencks wrote: Lets build version 1.0 of our specs right now, get them in an accessible repo, use them for the tck, and when it passes push them to m1 and m2 non-snapshot repos. We will make a best-effort attempt to have m1