On 9/28/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any reason for this?
i have my reasons (but ask no more ATM)
We discussed it internally and it turns out
these files are not used by default, and while might be useful for
some are certainly not necessary in OFBiz and if someone did need
On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:05 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 9/28/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Robert,
I'm one of the OFBiz committers and I'd like to thank you for your
great
scrutiny: this is very helpful and we are currently working to fix
all the
issues that yo
On 9/28/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Robert,
I'm one of the OFBiz committers and I'd like to thank you for your great
scrutiny: this is very helpful and we are currently working to fix all the
issues that you (and others in this list) have found.
Please see my comments in
On 9/28/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Robert,
I'm one of the OFBiz committers and I'd like to thank you for your great
scrutiny: this is very helpful and we are currently working to fix all the
issues that you (and others in this list) have found.
great :-)
these problem
Hi Robert,
I'm one of the OFBiz committers and I'd like to thank you for your great
scrutiny: this is very helpful and we are currently working to fix all the
issues that you (and others in this list) have found.
Please see my comments inline:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> ***IMPORTANT***
> h
On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
NOTICE should not have the list of licenses that apply - that's for
the
LICENSE file.
NOTICE should contain any required informational notices required
by those
licenses. For example, JDBM (the last entry in LICENSE) requires
in Clau
On 9/28/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've done another pass on the LICENSE file to hopefully address this
problem, but I'm not really sure that I understood exactly what it
needs to look like, so feedback on this would be great.
The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are availabl
I've done another pass on the LICENSE file to hopefully address this
problem, but I'm not really sure that I understood exactly what it
needs to look like, so feedback on this would be great.
The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are available here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator
On 9/25/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
group and the Incubator PMC.
gpg looks g
On 9/25/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE
i was going to use the notice as an example of good practice until i
noted that it lacked the header which is now r
On 9/26/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 25, 2006, at 10:56 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> (FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
> how to svn export)
Do you mean a separate source distribution is needed?
many would argue that for open sour
On Sep 25, 2006, at 10:56 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
(FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
how to svn export)
Do you mean a separate source distribution is needed?
In the past, as with this test snapshot, we have just included the
source and binary in th
On 9/25/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Leo and Justin for pointing this out. We'll get it fixed
(along with some other things too probably, thanks to Leo for some
good feedback) and make another test snapshot to submit for a vote.
it too late for me to go through such a bi
On 9/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's one important gotcha:
> -> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
> party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
> compatible. I beli
Thanks Leo and Justin for pointing this out. We'll get it fixed
(along with some other things too probably, thanks to Leo for some
good feedback) and make another test snapshot to submit for a vote.
-David
On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <[EM
On 9/25/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's one important gotcha:
-> the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
can't find an
Yes! Actual Feedback! Whoohooh!
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:24 AM, David E Jones wrote:
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are
now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general
Incubator group an
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
group and the Incubator PMC.
The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of "t
18 matches
Mail list logo
