codecov-io commented on issue #291: SCB-339 Exclude the version in online
services calculation
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-service-center/pull/291#issuecomment-368204688
#
coveralls commented on issue #291: SCB-339 Exclude the version in online
services calculation
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-service-center/pull/291#issuecomment-368204725
[![Coverage
zhengyangyong commented on issue #34: replace io.servicecomb to
org.apache.servicecomb
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-website/pull/34#issuecomment-368736794
We will update all version from 0.6.0-SNAPSHOT to 1.0.0-m1-SNAPSHOT later
zhengyangyong commented on a change in pull request #34: replace io.servicecomb
to org.apache.servicecomb
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-website/pull/34#discussion_r170807556
##
File path: _posts/cn/2017-09-14-maven-dependency-management.md
##
@@
codecov-io commented on issue #220: SC-49 Pact broker module for
consumer-driven contract testing
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-service-center/pull/220#issuecomment-353623834
#
coveralls commented on issue #220: SC-49 Pact broker module for consumer-driven
contract testing
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-service-center/pull/220#issuecomment-353988632
[![Coverage
coveralls commented on issue #560: [SCB-351] upgrade Jackson to 2.9.4 to avoid
security risk
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-java-chassis/pull/560#issuecomment-368504764
[![Coverage
yhs0092 opened a new pull request #560: [SCB-351] upgrade Jackson to 2.9.4 to
avoid security risk
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-java-chassis/pull/560
Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and
easily:
- [ ] Make sure there is
+1 (bindingļ¼
I checked the readme file, running the example and verify the file signature.
They are all looks good.
Willem
On 2/26/18, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> +1 Binding Vote.
>
> Checks Done:
> 1. Verify the file signature using the key over here
I think it depends on the user requirement.
we can keep the old code there, if the user want to use it , we can put it back.
On 2/26/18, Zheng Feng wrote:
> It looks good. Do we want to support the old saga module in the future ?
>
> 2018-02-24 16:47 GMT+08:00 Willem Jiang
+1 buiding and run integration tests passed
-- Original --
From: Sukesh A C
Date: Mon,Feb 26,2018 1:47 PM
To: Mohammad Asif Siddiqui ,
dev@servicecomb.apache.org
Cc: Vinay
11 matches
Mail list logo