Re: Wiki diffs

Mark Thomas wrote: > All, > > I think the wiki is probably the best place to start drafting a new set > of commit guidelines to cover what branches we have (and what state they > are in), what is RTC, what is CTR, etc. Great. In the next steps we should create a ROADMAP the same way to define wh

Review model final ?

Hi, After all these discussions, I think the review model as I proposed it puts commonly agreed development processes in black & white, which should help the project (while not hindering development in any way). To address some points: - It will do nothing to resolve ongoing conflicts, obviou

Re: Review model final ?

Remy Maucherat wrote: > > Hi, > > After all these discussions, I think the review model as I proposed it > puts commonly agreed development processes in black & white, which > should help the project (while not hindering development in any way). > I think, after yesterday's marathon discussio

[VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just propose a polite way to move from the commit for a controversial change ( i.e. when someone feels strongly it's going to the

Re: Review model final ?

On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Hi, After all these discussions, I think the review model as I proposed it puts commonly agreed development processes in black & white, which should help the project (while not hindering development in any way). I

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns as well as the problems which started this whole thing. [ ] 0. Whatever. [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: The vote will run for 96

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Hey, On 9/22/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ X ] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns > as well as the problems which started this whole > thing. Yoav - To unsubscribe,

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43442] - mod_jk documentation modification

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43442] - mod_jk documentation modification

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

svn commit: r578464 - /tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/xdocs/reference/workers.xml

Author: rjung Date: Sat Sep 22 10:28:29 2007 New Revision: 578464 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=578464&view=rev Log: Minor grammatical fixes to docs. Contributed by Gerhardus Geldenhuis. Modified: tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/xdocs/reference/workers.xml Modified: tomcat/connectors/trun

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Can we have a new VOTE with the six bullets (if it is that many - I'm losing track with all the responses). I'm not quite sure what I'm voting for. -Tim I'd like to call a vote on acceptance of the above methodology, as crafted and fine-tuned by Costin and myself. It is worthwhile to note tha

svn commit: r578466 - in /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk: java/org/apache/el/lang/FunctionMapperImpl.java webapps/docs/changelog.xml

Author: funkman Date: Sat Sep 22 11:05:54 2007 New Revision: 578466 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=578466&view=rev Log: bug 41797: CNFE/NPE thrown from function mapper when externalizing Patch by Tuomas Kiviaho- tuomas.kiviahos at ikis fi Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/java/org/apache

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41797] - CNFE/NPE thrown from function mapper when externalizing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Here is the synopsis: o Existence of release and development branches in parallel with each other (dev are odd numbered, release are even numbered). o Development branches are CTR. If code or patches to this branch change the API, advanced warning is required even before

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Jim Jagielski wrote: [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns as well as the problems which started this whole thing. [ ] 0. Whatever. [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: --

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41797] - CNFE/NPE thrown from function mapper when externalizing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Jim Jagielski wrote: [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns as well as the problems which started this whole thing. [ ] 0. Whatever. [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: My proposal was to put the principles forward clearly:

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

this email is so unclean, I'm a bit confused on the exact bullets, mind posting a new thread? Filip Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just pr

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

+1 On 9/22/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns > >as well as the problems which started this whole > >thing. > >[ ] 0. Whatever. > >[

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Jim Jagielski wrote: [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns as well as the problems which started this whole thing. [ ] 0. Whatever. [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: The vote will run for 96 hours instead of the normal 7

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Remy Maucherat wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns > >as well as the problems which started this whole > >thing. > >[ ] 0. Whatever. > >[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: > > My prop

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Jim Jagielski wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns as well as the problems which started this whole thing. [ ] 0. Whatever. [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: My proposal

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Jim Jagielski wrote: >[X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns >as well as the problems which started this whole >thing. >[ ] 0. Whatever. >[ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: > With the following caveats: - There is only

[Tomcat Wiki] Update of "FrontPage" by markt

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Tomcat Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by markt: http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/FrontPage -- * '''["Get

[Tomcat Wiki] Update of "TomcatVersions" by markt

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Tomcat Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by markt: http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/TomcatVersions New page: = Draft = To Do - Add new 6.x branches / releases - Resolve TBDs = Template = For

Re: [VOTE] Back to ASF Basics (Was: Re: Review model take 2)

Jim Jagielski wrote: [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns as well as the problems which started this whole thing. [ ] 0. Whatever. [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: If voted (and it looks it will) we should put them s