The Empire-db community has completed working on Release 2.0.5 and is now
looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
So far the release has been approved by Empire-db committers, but due to
vacation time and other circumstances the Mentors are unable to review the
release. Hence
On 21/08/2009, Rainer Döbele doeb...@esteam.de wrote:
The Empire-db community has completed working on Release 2.0.5 and is now
looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
So far the release has been approved by Empire-db committers, but due to
vacation time and other
the tag is located here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/empire-db-parent-2.0.5-incubating
This is because our parent module is called empire-db-parent. Is this a problem?
Francis
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Rainer
On 21/08/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Rainer Döbele doeb...@esteam.de wrote:
The Empire-db community has completed working on Release 2.0.5 and is now
looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
So far the release has been approved by Empire-db
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
the tag is located here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/tags/empire-db-parent-2.0.5-incubating
This is because our parent module is called empire-db-parent. Is this a
problem?
I don't have a problem
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
There is only a combined source/binary archive, which is not standard
practise.
All other projects release a source archive; almost all also release a
separate
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with all those issues ;-)
Scripts to download and unpack the archives.
Scripts to check sigs and hashes.
WinMerge and
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with
On 21/08/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
So sebb, what tool are you using there to come up with all those issues ;-)
Scripts to download and unpack the archives.
Scripts to check sigs and hashes.
WinMerge and
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
The archive is supposed to contain the *full* source, i.e. whatever
was used to create the binary.
It must be
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
There is only a combined source/binary archive, which is not standard
practise.
All other projects
On 21/08/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
There is only a combined
On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:05 AM, sebb wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
The archive is supposed to contain the *full* source, i.e. whatever
On 21/08/2009, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:05 AM, sebb wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere franci...@gmail.com wrote:
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
14 matches
Mail list logo
