Dan
Thanks for noting the lack of an incubator disclaimer in the META-INF.
I hadn't seen this requirement in the docs, but it makes sense to me.
As for the naming convention, we used the current convention in our
previous release and I'd rather leave it alone if its just a
preference. For my
Hen
I'm just following what I considered was the procedure. I'm happy to
take your advice, but I would have thought that the incubator list
needed the opportunity to vote.
Sanjiva has voted. He had some problems with the list, but his vote
got through eventually.
I think Glen should be on the
On Monday 11 December 2006 11:16, Craig L Russell wrote:
My understanding is that a legal issue is sufficient to veto a
release. So if an issue is raised, e.g. missing NOTICE or wrong
copyright in the LICENSE, that should be a veto. But I agree that the
fact that there is a legal issue raised
On 12/6/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 10 Dec 06, at 6:40 PM 10 Dec 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
We ask that you please vote to approve this release:
[ ] +1 Approve the Felix 0.8.0-incubator release.
[ ] -1 Veto the release
On Monday 11 December 2006 03:43, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Dan
Thanks for noting the lack of an incubator disclaimer in the META-INF.
I hadn't seen this requirement in the docs, but it makes sense to me.
As for the naming convention, we used the current convention in our
previous release and
Thanks for the links
Having read the chain, I can see that putting incubating in the
version helps maintain continuity as we graduate. But in our case it
breaks continuity with our previous releases and format.
Given that we meet the requirements of the incubator (having the
artefacts clearly
As a follow up, we resolved every issue raised by Daniel except the
signing portion. A new snapshot of the release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-0.8.0-incubator.html
I was able to fix one minor bug in our maven bundle plugin that was
causing LICENSE/NOTICE files
On Monday 11 December 2006 10:57, Richard S. Hall wrote:
As a follow up, we resolved every issue raised by Daniel except the
signing portion. A new snapshot of the release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-0.8.0-incubator.html
I was able to fix one minor bug in
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 11 December 2006 10:57, Richard S. Hall wrote:
As a follow up, we resolved every issue raised by Daniel except the
signing portion. A new snapshot of the release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-0.8.0-incubator.html
I was able to
On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:27 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 12/6/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Jim Jagielski wrote:
As long as 3 people within the PMC attest to its validity, the
release can go out. AFAIK, only a legal veto can block
a release. In most cases, of course, the community listens
and responds to any -1 votes and tries to address them,
if need be. Ignoring -1's is bad
On 12/11/06, Richard S. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 11 December 2006 10:57, Richard S. Hall wrote:
As a follow up, we resolved every issue raised by Daniel except the
signing portion. A new snapshot of the release is available at:
Bo,
Don't forget the tip from paul:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-generalm=116577422312412w=2
Basically review what the Qpid guys did for the JMS disclaimers and
add the same for JAX-WS and JSR-181
thanks,
-- dims
On 12/11/06, Bozhong Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright, then
I will leave the vote open it till Wednesday at which time I will
provide a summary of the final vote. Qpid has the votes required for
releasing, with vote running longer than 72 hours and thus would like to
provide notice of closing the vote Wednesday if there are any additional
votes.
+1 from me.
thanks,
-- dims
On 12/11/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will leave the vote open it till Wednesday at which time I will
provide a summary of the final vote. Qpid has the votes required for
releasing, with vote running longer than 72 hours and thus would like to
On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 10 Dec 06, at 8:02 PM 10 Dec 06, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/10/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 Dec 06, at 6:40 PM 10 Dec 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
We ask that you please
+1 from me as well .. my vote wasn't going thru because I was traveling
and I had my smtp going out on port 25 and the damned hotel ISP was
trying to be too smart. I used to use smtp over ssl (465) and had to
turn that off somewhere else because it wasn't working. Anyway now I'm
back in action and
Has CXF passed the TCK for JSR-181 (JAX-WS)?
CXF project don't have access to TCK to measure this. I have sent couple
of emails to jcp-open mailing list requesting to acquire this TCK.
Looks like Geir has JSR-914 (JMS) in queue before JAX-WS.
Hope we can get on this TCK soon :)
Thanks,
Adi
If this is now a vote then I'm +1 :-)
Paul
On 12/11/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
thanks,
-- dims
On 12/11/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will leave the vote open it till Wednesday at which time I will
provide a summary of the final vote. Qpid has
I've updates the release candidate here:
http://people.apache.org/~pzf/synapse/0.90/
This now includes the DISCLAIMER in the META-INF/ of synapse...mar
And here is my +1.
Paul
On 12/10/06, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Synapse team has voted to release 0.90 of the codebase.
21 matches
Mail list logo
