On Dec 7, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
There was a question raised by Greg Stein about a better template for
board resolution, but since no alternative template has been made
available, we are sticking with what we have.
I suggest you change all Apache Cayenne PMC references to
Brian McCallister wrote:
Concern:
Was there any resolution on the AMQP licensing terms (1) in relation
to making releases? I think it is okay, but how it fits into the
current draft guidelines (2) I am unsure. I think Cliff voted for
this, so I suspect it is okay. Just want to make sure :-)
Folks
This is a heads up that we are having a release vote in Synapse-Dev,
planning to release Synapse 0.90.
The mail thread starts here:
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=7739425framed=y
Paul
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Dec
Hello,
I am trying to list a module for a specified organisation and revision with
an extra attribute: kind.
However, it seems that Ivy ignores the extra attribute.
Also when checking into the code I can see no use of the extra attrbute
specified in the passed ModuleReviosionId.
I use the
On 12/7/06, Eran Bartenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to list a module for a specified organisation and revision
with
an extra attribute: kind.
However, it seems that Ivy ignores the extra attribute.
Also when checking into the code I can see no use of the extra attrbute
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 12:46 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
There was a question raised by Greg Stein about a better template for
board resolution, but since no alternative template has been made
available, we are sticking with what we have.
I suggest you change all
Just add yourself to the monthly schedule on the wiki and then you'll be
scheduled (pick any group you like) :-)
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule
Also, new incubator projects must report every month for the first three
months. After that then the reporting schedule kicks in
On 12/6/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, its that time of the month again, so this should not come as a surprise
to anyone. Reports are due on or by Friday, December
Is that Dec 8th?
Henri's
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator-info.txt
In
On 12/4/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the
previous branding issues. As no one else seems to have found any other
issues, we've cut a new build and published it here:
Binaries and Source Distributions:
Hi Robert,
- questions -
http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1-v2/repository/org/apache/cxf/cxf-api/2.0-incubator-M1/cxf-api-2.0-incubator-M1-javadoc.jar
is missing license, disclaimer and notice files. it cannot therefore
be distributed. planning to distribute this jar from a
On 12/7/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert,
- questions -
http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1-v2/repository/org/apache/cxf/cxf-api/2.0-incubator-M1/cxf-api-2.0-incubator-M1-javadoc.jar
is missing license, disclaimer and notice files. it cannot therefore
On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:12, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 12/4/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(NOTE: we just started labelling the different releases as v1/v2/etc.
While this is our 3rd attempt, the above says v2 as we just started
counting in the directory name...)
Oh, forgot to say:
Very big thanks for taking the time to look at the release and commenting on
it. Those of you that are taking the time to look at stuff on projects you
aren't a mentor on deserve a medal or something.
VERY big thanks.
Dan
On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:48, Daniel
On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say for now we just remove that jar if it's needed. However, how
did
the servicemix and other projects votes pass if it's a requirement? Is
this
another new requirement in the middle of a vote thing?
*wonders the same thing*
Doh! didn't check reply to before sending
(sorry for the duplicate post daniel)
On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:12, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 12/4/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(NOTE: we just started labelling the
On 12/7/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/7/06, Dan Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As opposed to cutting a new release completely, can we choose one/any of
the
follow options and get your +1?
1. Not distribute the javadoc jar
2. Recut just that jar after figuring
On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:59, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:12, robert burrell donkin wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1-v2/repository/org/a
pach
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say for now we just remove that jar if it's needed.
However, how
did
the servicemix and other projects votes pass if it's a
requirement? Is
this
another new requirement in the
I must be missing something. If they aren't voted on, how do you know
if they're valid and meet release requirements?
On 12/7/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say for now we
On Dec 7, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I must be missing something. If they aren't voted on, how do you know
if they're valid and meet release requirements?
It is impossible to verify that in a binary. We have to trust the
person building it to do so according to an approved
On Thursday 07 December 2006 19:59, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I must be missing something. If they aren't voted on, how do you know
if they're valid and meet release requirements?
It is impossible to verify that in a binary. We have to trust
21 matches
Mail list logo
