Definitely a big step in the right direction, however..
The ruby, c++, and python packages don't have the disclaimer in them.
The Java licenses file mentions the EPL, but I didn't see any eclipse licensed
jars and stuff. I could have missed it though. Not a big deal though.
Dan
O
Sounds much better.
The key thing here is to highlight the responsibilities of the PPMC, the
mentors and the IPMC and whose votes binding (or not).
This will ensure that everybody understands what they are supposed to do.
PPMC only recommends committers and the voting in the private list is to
sho
+1 from me.
--Rajith
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I checked the signature and reviewed the license, notice, and disclaimer
> files in the release, and everything looked good.
>
> +1
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
I checked the signature and reviewed the license, notice, and
disclaimer files in the release, and everything looked good.
+1
Craig
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Aidan Skinner wrote:
There were some problems with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in RC3 (is
there a good guide to this anywhere? hav
Aidan Skinner wrote:
There were some problems with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in RC3 (is
there a good guide to this anywhere? having all the individual
licenses in LICENSE seems odd to me...) so I've rolled RC4[1] and
would like to restart the vote to release Apache Qpid M3.
I started the v
Btw, Apache ServiceMix also has a JBI service engine implementating
WS-BrokeredNotification on top of a JMS broker (which btw saves a lot
of work ...). It would be interesting to see if we can come up with
something that could be shared by the three projects (Savan, Poloka
and ServiceMix) ...
On
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-77?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12628089#action_12628089
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on INCUBATOR-77:
--
There also seems to be dependencies
Hi Martijn
you're absolutely right. The build.xml should go in the root directory in the
future. I have already created a JIRA task for it
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EMPIREDB-9
Thanks.
Rainer
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> I haven't looked closely at the release yet (I'll try to grab
I haven't looked closely at the release yet (I'll try to grab an hour
tonight). A quick cursory glance through the rat report shows that the
headers are now in order.
Minor point:
- build.xml is in a strange location: in the src directory in the
root package. This really is not the Ant/Java way.
Since no one else seems to vote here, I do.
Here's my +1 (non binding)
Rainer
Jörg Reiher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The community has approved a release of apache-empire-db-2.0.3-incubating >
> and apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.3-incubating.
>
> Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Po
10 matches
Mail list logo
