not asking the committers to do some extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress
.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that
community
is
more important than code, and the community aspect here seems
not asking the committers to do some extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and
appreciate
Thanks for all the info, Simon. This all looks great. All I really
wanted was for this info to be posted (to the dev list) before the
branch was created rather than after. I (and probably a lot of other
people here) don't watch JIRA messages closely as there are so many.
A suggestion: maybe a
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all the info, Simon. This all looks great. All I really wanted
was for this info to be posted (to the dev list) before the branch was
created rather than after. I (and probably a lot of other people here) don't
as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that
community
is
more important than code, and the community aspect here
.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an
ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that
community
is
more
ports it, which does increase the load on
existing committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when
patching bugs?
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation
and the committer ports it, which does increase the load on existing
committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when patching bugs?
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation
to do this when patching bugs?
Why not putting JSF 1.1 to maintain stage;
Do some more JSF 1.2 releases (like Leo is planing to do)
and keep the JSF 2.0 active. even if we need to re-branch
(or need to apply some other (plugin related) changes
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation
committers. When do we stop
asking committers to do this when patching bugs?
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and appreciate people contributing time to write an
ASF-2.0-licensed implementation. But it is a standard saying at
Apache that community
one version
and the committer ports it, which does increase the load on existing
committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when patching bugs?
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
asking committers to do this when patching bugs?
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and appreciate people contributing time to write an
ASF-2.0-licensed implementation. But it is a standard saying at
Apache that community is more important than code
the committers to do some extra work.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that community is
more important than code, and the community aspect
.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that community is
more important than code, and the community aspect here seems to have
been rather
needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that community
is
more important than code
the committers to do some extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time
extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0
and then, so
I'm
not asking the committers to do some extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress
. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation
*happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that
community
is
more important than code, and the community aspect here seems to
have
been rather
to do some extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and
appreciate people contributing time
not asking the committers to do some extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress,
and
appreciate people
, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that
community
is
more important than code, and the community aspect here seems
will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an
ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache
, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed
implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that
community
is
more important than code, and the community aspect here
seems to
have
been rather
extra work.
yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work
there, on the branch.
If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO.
To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in
progress, and
appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0
27 matches
Mail list logo
