On 6/24/12 3:29 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 24 June 2012 20:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 6/24/12 12:00 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 24 June 2012 15:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/24/12 7:12 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
>> On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
On 24 June 2012 20:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/24/12 12:00 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 24 June 2012 15:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 6/24/12 7:12 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
> On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wro
On 6/24/12 1:38 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2012 20:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 6/24/12 12:00 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> Nexus does not prevent any of this; it is a staging repo.
>> It does block what used to be a simple, controlled process
>>
>> 0) generate, test and sign artifacts locally
>> 1) u
On 24/06/2012 20:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/24/12 12:00 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Nexus does not prevent any of this; it is a staging repo.
>
> It does block what used to be a simple, controlled process
>
> 0) generate, test and sign artifacts locally
> 1) upload to p.a.o
> 2) vote
> 3) move to relea
On 6/24/12 12:00 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 24 June 2012 15:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 6/24/12 7:12 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>>> Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 24 June 2012 15:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/24/12 7:12 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
>>> On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas
On 6/24/12 7:12 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
>> On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wro
On 24 June 2012 15:12, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
>
>> On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 17/06
Am 24.06.2012 03:05, schrieb sebb:
On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL
As general note, releasing is hard, error prone and cumbersome. I just
don't know what to do about it. The whole 'site in SVN' thing is
interesting. Maybe it's a direction worth pursuing for more than just
the site, not sure.
Gary
On Jun 23, 2012, at 21:05, sebb wrote:
> On 23 June 2012 23:00,
On 23 June 2012 23:00, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL-217 affect
> 2.0.
On 6/17/12 2:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL-217 affect
2.0.
>>> +1
>>>
We need to resolve these and do
On 17/06/2012 16:26, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL-217 affect
>>> 2.0.
>> +1
>>
>>> We need to resolve these and do some javadoc and site
>>> cleanup; but unless t
On 6/17/12 1:13 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL-217 affect
>> 2.0.
> +1
>
>> We need to resolve these and do some javadoc and site
>> cleanup; but unless there are other things we want to get into 2.0,
>>
On 17/06/2012 08:49, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL-217 affect
> 2.0.
+1
> We need to resolve these and do some javadoc and site
> cleanup; but unless there are other things we want to get into 2.0,
> I would like to move this toward a release. I
Looks like only the relatively trivial POOL-220 and POOL-217 affect
2.0. We need to resolve these and do some javadoc and site
cleanup; but unless there are other things we want to get into 2.0,
I would like to move this toward a release. I will volunteer to RM
if no one else wants to. Is there
16 matches
Mail list logo
