On Jan 31, 2008 2:30 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2008 10:27 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> > On Jan 28, 2008 5:31 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java
On Jan 31, 2008 10:27 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> ...ant
>
> On Jan 28, 2008 5:31 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java 1.1-incubating identified
> some
> > issues.
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/general
+1
...ant
On Jan 28, 2008 5:31 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java 1.1-incubating identified some
> issues.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg16483.html
>
> A new release candidate (RC3a) has been create
+1
I scanned the RAT output, eyeballed the license and notice files, and
cracked open some of the binaries. All looked good. Nice job.
--kevan
On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
Hi,
The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java 1.1-incubating identified
some
issues.
http://w
Looks good to me, thanks for correcting the problems mentioned by Sebastian.
+1
Matthieu
On Jan 28, 2008 9:31 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java 1.1-incubating identified some
> issues.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubato
Hi,
The previous VOTE thread here for SCA Java 1.1-incubating identified some
issues.
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg16483.html
A new release candidate (RC3a) has been created addressing the issues as
discussed in the previous thread. I'm starting this IPMC VOTE thr
On Jan 25, 2008 12:50 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 2008 8:59 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 24, 2008 9:39 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROT
On 25/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 8:59 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 2008 9:39 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > Hi sebb
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the detai
On Jan 25, 2008 8:59 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:39 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > Hi sebb
> > >
> > > Thank you for the detailed review.
> > >
> > > Can you tell me what you mean by
> > >
> > >
On Jan 24, 2008 9:39 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi sebb
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed review.
> >
> > Can you tell me what you mean by
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 24/01/2008,
On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi sebb
>
> Thank you for the detailed review.
>
> Can you tell me what you mean by
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 24/01/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think the NOTICE files in the art
Hi sebb
Thank you for the detailed review.
Can you tell me what you mean by
On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/01/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
> > distributed are OK.
>
> Surely the
On 24/01/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
> distributed are OK.
Surely the archive bundles are also distributed?
==
There are some discrepancies in the jar files covered by the LICENSE
file - the names mentioned in the
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
distributed are OK. The ${pom.name} is changed by the build process so the
generated artifact has the proper name, for example, the jar built for
wsdl2java ends up with a NOTICE file containing "Apache Tuscany SCA
WSDL2Java Tool", se
Some of the NOTICE files start with the text:
${pom.name}
e.g.
tools/wsdl2java
and
modules/policy
This does not seem right.
The top-level NOTICE and LICENSE files in demos/mortgage-loanapproval
are the standard ASF ones - however NOTICE and LICENSE.txt in the
demos/mortgage-loanapproval/src/ma
Hi,
The Tuscany project had a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to publish the
Tuscany SCA Java 1.1-incubating release. The vote thread on tuscany-dev has
7 +1s and an archive can be found at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg27321.html
The release includes new function and bug
16 matches
Mail list logo