On Monday 28 August 2006 11:31, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Could that report be made part of the release:prepare and the
> > release manager
> > had to explicitly approve it??
>
> How are we supposed to enforce that? And what if they are not using
> Maven? Say using either the Maven Ant Tasks, or
On 27 Aug 06, at 10:26 PM 27 Aug 06, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 08:58, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Perhaps Maven can help by not allowing the transitive dependency on
incubating projects? Just thinking out loud...
If you can clearly see what you have in a report so I'm not sure
On Monday 28 August 2006 08:58, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Perhaps Maven can help by not allowing the transitive dependency on
> > incubating projects? Just thinking out loud...
>
> If you can clearly see what you have in a report so I'm not sure we
> would want to put any special rules in place
On 27 Aug 06, at 6:28 PM 27 Aug 06, Craig L Russell wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On 8/27/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There was discussion that incubator repository would not be
sync'd to
the central repository but I don't really see much p
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Steve Toback wrote:
>
>> The Lokahi community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
>> Lokahi M01.
>
> I see that Yoav voted +1, but neither Bill Stoddard nor William Rowe. Were
> there reasons for those non-votes?
No idea about Bill Stoddard, but right now th
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Steve Toback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Lokahi community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
>> Lokahi M01. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy
>> we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
The company behind Kabuki decided to stop (from their side) the
incubation process at the ASF - you should go and contact them
directly.
regards,
Martin
On 8/26/06, david reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Jorge Schrauwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I was browsing incubator today and found:
http:/
On Aug 27, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On 8/27/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to
the central repository but I don't really see much point in this.
[...]
Also someone may make an repository request
Hi,
On 8/27/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to
the central repository but I don't really see much point in this.
[...]
Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator
artifact in the central reposit
I updated the page and updated the site. Waiting for the sync.
Craig
On Aug 27, 2006, at 2:29 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 8/26/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After the reorganization of the incubator site, the main page has
at least
three broken links:
There is a
On 8/26/06, david reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
> I suggest something like
>
>
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/doap-converter
Is this really the right place? How do the files get from this set of
directories to site-publish?
i'm not sur
Hi,
It looks like people objected to creating another mailing list for
policy so I just used [policy] as Robert did in a previous message.
Henri has setup Maven repositories for the incubator and there is a
document which is an attempt to describe the current setup here:
http://www.apache
On 8/27/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it would be a lot easier if one had special support for
"embedded structures" in the index -- like you need for XML indexing.
Lucene doesn't have "embedded structures" yet, but it's been discussed.
http://www.nabble.com/Flexible-index-format---
On 8/26/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After the reorganization of the incubator site, the main page has at least
three broken links:
There is a lot more detail available on
1. what
the incubator is responsible for and
2. how we
do that. Please see the menu on the
On 8/25/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> FYI: this is a majority vote not subject to vetos. So, there's no
>> requirement that you provide a reason for voting against it - just
>> like you don't have to provide a reason why you're
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 8/26/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From an application perspective, we have great hopes for a cooperation
with the Lucene project.
Great, I think this is something I'd like to get involved in!
I've been thinking about how Solr integration could work.
You
16 matches
Mail list logo
