On 9/20/06, Markus KARG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i.e. No on maintains the FOP available in the repo. > It is there as a convenience only. > > I might also suggest you adjust your attitude. Sorry for beeing rude and thank you for telling me. It wasn't my intention. But see, I just want to know who is the guy that has write access to the FOP's pom.xml. After two days I get told "Carlos", while Carlos actually wasn't able to tell me that directly in his first email. Isn't it ironic to discuss two days (over 20 emails) instead of just writing "Hi, I'm Carlos, it's me whom you have to send the fixed pom.xml"? Don't you think you would be a bit rude then, too?
Carlos did tell you who maintains it and the answer is no one. Carlos is just one of the people who will upload your pom and artifact if you follow the instructions on the web site. So you are able to make the necessary changes and get it fixed. The problem that Jorg points out is still outstanding is what naming conventions should be used to indicate that this fixes a problem with an already released version of the artifact. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
