On 8/23/06, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue SHALE-258[1] is
very
frustrating and should be addressed before the release.
I think I know why it's happening, but I'm fairly sure that issue was
opened after 1.0.3 was tagged and
Wendy,
should be addressed before the release can include documentation, i.e. a note
in the release notes, on the web page, in the Wiki...
I suspect the root cause is in the root pom.xml
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/shale/framework/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup
Yes, using exclusions are the
From: Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(3) Vote
Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on
whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes
we'll hold a quality vote later on.
[ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
[ ] +1 for
+1
On 8/21/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 (Binding)
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. They
+1
david
2006/8/22, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1
On 8/21/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 (Binding)
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following
files
have md5 and sha1
+1 (Binding)
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm
about to tag as APACHE_SHALE_1_0_3.
(1) Maven Snapshot Repository At
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files
have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing
key. ...
The PGP signatures are good, but the .md5 and .sha1 checksums do not
include
