Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon nee

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers commit access to the cocoon project. Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that grants rw to @gump for just that file, at least I think it allows file-granularity. Even b

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's >>>the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. >> >>

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

On 17-06-2005 05:24, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that grants >> rw to @gump for just that file, at least I think it allows >> file-granularity. > > Even better. Can we do it or is it something that infra@ has to do?

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's >>the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. > > > Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo in it for many > days?

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

On 16-06-2005 17:00, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers >> commit access to the cocoon project. > > Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authoriz

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's > the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo in it for many days? Like when you rename a jar but forge

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I've committed this patch to Cocoon trunk. > > > Many thanks. > > >>I presume that is the correct place. > > > Until the Cocoon project is annoyed enough by our patches and moves > the descriptor over to

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've committed this patch to Cocoon trunk. Many thanks. > I presume that is the correct place. Until the Cocoon project is annoyed enough by our patches and moves the descriptor over to Gump land, I think it is. 8-) Stefan --

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

Stefan, I've committed this patch to Cocoon trunk. I presume that is the correct place. Regards, Upayavira Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi all, your own project definitions of commons-javaflow, commons-jci and lately spring break the Gump supplied definitions. We've been building svn trunk of com

[PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

Hi all, your own project definitions of commons-javaflow, commons-jci and lately spring break the Gump supplied definitions. We've been building svn trunk of commons-jci for weeks now, but it gets listed as failed because it doesn't produce a jar with "your" name. spring is an installed package