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 t
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 script.
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
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 mi
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*
Addi
