On 8/23/12 2:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are
On 23.08.2012 02:43, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are
On 8/22/2012 5:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are
Hi,
On 21.08.2012 14:34, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi,
On 21.08.2012 00:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on
Hi,
On 21.08.2012 00:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official
SOURCE release.
I looked again at the
Hi,
On 22.08.2012 11:29, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi,
On 21.08.2012 00:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 22.08.2012 11:29, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
Hi,
On 21.08.2012 00:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the
official SOURCE
On 21.08.2012 00:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official
SOURCE release.
I looked again at the
On 8/21/12 12:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the
official SOURCE release.
I looked again at the
Hi,
On 21.08.2012 00:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official
SOURCE release.
I looked again at the
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official
SOURCE release.
I looked again at the rat-excludes and we should look into a small
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the
official SOURCE
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
Not really. It is not like issues like this are going to be found by
sitting here and not pushing the code our further. Every new class of
testers will find a new
Hi;
- Original Message -
...
Ditto. This is our code, the source is there, with Apache headers.
The pre-built JAR at worst is redundant. I don't see a policy issue
here.
./stax/download/README_stax-1.2.0.jar
Need to ask Pedro about that one:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi;
- Original Message -
...
Ditto. This is our code, the source is there, with Apache headers.
The pre-built JAR at worst is redundant. I don't see a policy issue
here.
- Original Message -
...
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
I think so too :(.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official
SOURCE
release.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Original Message -
...
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
I think so too :(.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin
asked for confirmation that
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
- Original Message -
...
Hi Folks,
We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
I think so too :(.
We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed -
Marvin
asked for confirmation that the IPMC
- Original Message -
Marvin's intervention is very far reaching indeed. It pretty much
supports the position
that there is no such thing as a binary release, and it involves some
issues that have
to be solved before graduation.
Now I think you are getting ahead of
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Original Message -
Marvin's intervention is very far reaching indeed. It pretty much
supports the position
that there is no such thing as a binary release, and it involves some
issues that have
to be
Hi Dave;
- Original Message -
...
The particular concern of how the official packages are
generated and distributed is also interesting. At this time
I would say the FreeBSD port is as legitimate and
worthy of being tagged Apache OpenOffice as the Windows
packages in
22 matches
Mail list logo