All:
The Pivot community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache
Pivot 1.3 Release Candidate 3. We would now like to request the permission
of the Incubator PMC to publish the artifacts on the Pivot download page.
Release artifacts, RAT reports, etc.:
http://people.apache.org/~tv
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> ...I am hoping that other incubator PMC members who have not VOTE'd would cast
> their ballot as well...
That's a hard one...let's say
+1
But I expect the project to clarify its focus, and demonstrate
collaboration with other Apac
Folks,
I see Niall, Leo, Jeremy, Robert, Bill and Guillaume respond to concerns from Jim and Niclas. It would be invaluable if
any incubator PMC members with concerns (or without!) could help us as mentors during the incubation process.
Here's the list of votes so far (see below). Noel, can yo
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 18/09/2009, Andreas Lehmkühler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The PDFBox PPMC has voted to release version 0.8.0-incubating of PDFBox.
>> The release candidate is available for review at
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~lehmi/pdfbox/pdfbox-0.8.0-incubati
On 18/09/2009, Andreas Lehmkühler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PDFBox PPMC has voted to release version 0.8.0-incubating of PDFBox. The
> release candidate is available for review at
>
>http://people.apache.org/~lehmi/pdfbox/pdfbox-0.8.0-incubating/
>
> See the attached original vote messages for m
On 18/09/2009, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
>
> >>>The several (all?) of the war files in the samples directory tree
> >>>contain jsf-facelets-1.1.14.jar.
> >>>This does not appear to be ASF software, but is not mentioned in
> >>>NOTICE or LICENSE.
> >>>IMO this is a blocker.
>
>
> I re
Thanks Jukka! Can someone else please have a look? -- we're still one vote
shy.
-T
> * You seem to have put the Apache license headers even on files that
> the LICENSE file claims to be under different licenses. See
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party for instructions
> on how
I guess this is really a wording problem. I don't think anyone is
thinking about bringing Geronimo, James, ServiceMix, CXF, Axis,
ActiveMQ or anything like that into Aries. The real goal as it has
been said an OSGi Enterprise Programming Model, and the comparison
that has been made with Geronimo
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> targeting an exit as a felix sub-project would require the aries
> proposes to start again with approval from the felix proposal and so
> on. it may also prove controversial.
You missed the point. It is not about exit strategy, it i
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
>> I am having a really difficult time getting my head around Jim and Niclas'
>> objections that this is an umbrella project.
>
> I think Jim came up with a good lithmus test; "If it i
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> I am having a really difficult time getting my head around Jim and Niclas'
> objections that this is an umbrella project.
I think Jim came up with a good lithmus test; "If it is unclear what
should NOT go into a project..."
So, when I read
11 matches
Mail list logo
