- An emeritus committer can request commit access again at any time
they feel they can be active, and a vote will be held to accept them
or not.
I'm not a Maven committer so this is a "peanut gallery" comment, but the
corresponding policy in other similar situations I've seen across Apache is
On 12/22/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/22/06, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Kenney Westerhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the problem is that a 'staged' release
> > still contains a SNAPSHOT keyword in the metadata/filename?
On 10/15/06, Tom Huybrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
just one comment: wouldn't it be better if release:accept would copy the
2.0.5-rcX artifacts to 2.0.5 (like in Joakim's proposal) instead of doing
the build again ?
Wouldn't all the internal version numbers in things like
META-INF/M
y separate process because different projects will want to
do different things?
Hope this helps start the flow of discussion...
- Joakim Erdfelt
Craig McClanahan
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Jason and I have had some chats about this, but I thought it might be
good
> to bring this up to a wider
On 8/23/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/23/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are building with m2 there is no reason for the metadata not
> to be there. If the release plugin was used then the metadata would
> be there. How was this release made?
Shale and S
The Apache Shale committers have voted to release version 1.0.3. Please
rsync the Apache repository (
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository) to the public
Maven repositories.
Craig
Please rsync the Apache directory
"/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-repository/org/apache/shale" to the
ibiblio repository. This will pick up version 1 of the shale-master POM, so
that it can be depended on by an upcoming Shale 1.0.3 release.
Thanks,
Craig McClanahan
