Re: ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)

2007-03-03 Thread Jean T. Anderson
Leo Simons wrote: > On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: >> Jeremy Boynes wrote: >> ... >>> I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the IP >>> clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the >>> code >>> here >>> http://incubator.apac

Re: ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)

2007-03-03 Thread Leo Simons
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: Jeremy Boynes wrote: ... I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the IP clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the code here http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html and there

ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)

2007-02-25 Thread Jean T. Anderson
Jeremy Boynes wrote: ... > I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the IP > clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the code > here > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator

Tuscany is still a podling ...

2007-02-25 Thread Jeremy Boynes
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Sunday 25 February 2007 22:34, Jeremy Boynes wrote: The vote below was held in the Tuscany podling to release two artifacts that are used by other modules during the build process; they are a podling-wide parent pom and configuration data fo