Sorry, sloppy on my part:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-roller-dev/200608.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
On 8/4/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Congrats to Craig :)
This is the right way to tackle this I think. Just needs a reference
(message-id or http://mail-archives.
IMHO the incubator should not impose timescales or a schedule on a
project but a project may decide to impose a timescale on itself.
My thought is that a time scale would be part of the proposal. If that
proposal is voted in, it would also mean the time scale is excepted
and thus - unless urgent
On 8/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the
way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done
privately and the result was announced here.
hmm...sounds like we should have some docs that
On 8/5/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the
way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done
privately and the result was announced here.
+1
I can imagine how frustrating this must be
personally i am fine with "incubation takes as long as it takes" statement.
it is your organization and it is up to you whether or not you want to let
the project into the incubator and into graduation. i also understand the
"need to observe open development style on apache ground" argument. what
On 8/5/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/4/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> >> I understand that there are some specific circumstances in this case,
> >> but in general I believe this sort of criteria is why we get
> >> complaints th
On Aug 4, 2006, at 08:31, Danny Angus wrote:
Hi everybody,
I don't have a binding vote here, but..
-1
I strongly object to the name, in some sense I object to this name
because it is also the name of the city in which I work, and
conversations about "Glasgow" will be a bit wierd.
But very m
