Thanks for bringing me into context, Phil. Of course, I agree with all your
points.
Jochen
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
> wr
Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/30/13 10:29 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 30 April 2013 18:25, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
> wrote:
Am 30.04.2013 17:17, schrieb Phil Steitz:
On 4/30/13 7:51 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
"developer"
categor
On 4/30/13 10:29 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 April 2013 18:25, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
wrote:
>> Is there any policy concern
On 30 April 2013 18:25, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>> On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
> >> wrote:
> Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alph
On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
>> wrote:
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repositor
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
> wrote:
> >
> >> Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
> >> releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
> >> replicated to
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles wrote:
>
>> Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
>> releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
>> replicated to Maven Central?
>>
>>
> Not sure that question makes sense a
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles wrote:
> Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
> releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
> replicated to Maven Central?
>
>
Not sure that question makes sense as posed.
If a build is voted on, it is a
Le 30/04/2013 17:59, Honton, Charles a écrit :
> Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
> releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
> replicated to Maven Central?
I don't know, but nightly builds are already pushed to the snapshot
repository:
ht
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
replicated to Maven Central?
Chas
On 4/30/13 8:28 AM, "sebb" wrote:
>On 30 April 2013 15:51, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz
On 30 April 2013 15:51, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
>>>
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
"developer"
category for tha
On 4/30/13 7:51 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>>> On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
"developer"
category for that component.
>>
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
"developer"
category for that component.
If his app _uses_ a Commons component, he is a "user" of
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
>> If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
>> "developer"
>> category for that component.
>> If his app _uses_ a Commons component, he is a "user" of that
>> component.
>> This kind of users sho
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
"developer"
category for that component.
If his app _uses_ a Commons component, he is a "user" of that component.
This kind of users should indeed be encouraged to test snapshots, and
report
proble
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:47:15 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 29 April 20
Sorry, hit wrong button - not yet used to the new GMail.
On 29 April 2013 19:36, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
> >> guess an alpha
On 29 April 2013 19:36, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
> >> guess an alpha release would be safer.
> >> I could imagine doing a firs
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>> On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
>>>
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if som
On 04/29/2013 04:51 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>>
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha relea
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>
>> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
>> guess an alpha release would be safer.
>> I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
>> changes to an alp
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
> >>> guess an a
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
>>> guess an alpha release would be safer.
> Please keep upwards compatibil
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>
> > Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
> > guess an alpha release would be safer.
>
Please keep upwards compatibility to any previous releases in mind.
Commons'
>Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
>guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
changes to an alpha2 release, as I will need a bit more time to work on the
Trie interface and maybe add a fluent AP
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
> guess an alpha release would be safer.
> I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
> changes to an alpha2 release, as I will need a bit more time
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
changes to an alpha2 release, as I will need a bit more time to work on the
Trie interface and maybe add a fluent API
On 28 April 2013 18:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Is less attention paid to the API for an alpha/beta?
>
>
If the idea is to be able to change the API (possibly breaking
compatibility) then I don't think a Beta release is appropriate.
That would be for an Alpha release - and we would have to make v
Is less attention paid to the API for an alpha/beta?
Hen
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> There is nothing special. Even with "alpha", or "beta" as part of the
> version number, it is technically an ASF release, and therefore subject to
> the full blown process and rul
There is nothing special. Even with "alpha", or "beta" as part of the
version number, it is technically an ASF release, and therefore subject to
the full blown process and rules.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have seen that the log4j team prepared a new bet
I think we can make it be the same as releasing a full release.
Gary
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:57, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have seen that the log4j team prepared a new beta for v2.
>
> As collections 4 is very close to be ready, I'd like to know more about
> the process of beta releases,
Hi,
I have seen that the log4j team prepared a new beta for v2.
As collections 4 is very close to be ready, I'd like to know more about
the process of beta releases, as I am planning to do the same for
collections 4.
Can somebody enlighten me a bit?
Thanks,
Thomas
34 matches
Mail list logo
