On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2008 12:08:52 pm Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 29 September 2008 12:08:52 pm Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> > Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet again :)
>> >
>> > Geronimo PMC used Yoko, Yoko fa
On Monday 29 September 2008 12:08:52 pm Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet again :)
> >
> > Geronimo PMC used Yoko, Yoko failed, they ended up absorbing most of
> > the code.
>
> I wouldn't call Yoko *f
On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet again :)
Geronimo PMC used Yoko, Yoko failed, they ended up absorbing most of
the code.
I wouldn't call Yoko *failed*. It didn't generate enough interest to
go TLP, but did become a
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Doug. We don't need explicit disclaimers. We can
> encourage them however to mention it somewhere appropriate.
>
+1. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Matthieu
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008
I agree with Doug. We don't need explicit disclaimers. We can
encourage them however to mention it somewhere appropriate.
thanks,
dims
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. I was writing something much the same. We could even re
Upayavira wrote:
Exactly. I was writing something much the same. We could even require
TLP projects that have incubating dependencies to include a statement in
their releases to that effect: "Should any of our incubating
dependencies fail incubation, we (the TLP) will take responsibility for
that
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could even require TLP projects that have incubating dependencies
> to include a statement in their releases to that effect: "Should any
> of our incubating dependencies fail incubation, we (the TLP) will take
> respon
On 26/09/2008, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 22:40 +0200, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's another angle to the incubating release issue. We already
> > discussed this lately in relation to Apache FtpServer and the
> > JSecurity podling, see http://mar
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 22:40 +0200, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's another angle to the incubating release issue. We already
> discussed this lately in relation to Apache FtpServer and the
> JSecurity podling, see http://markmail.org/message/g23r7rvwvbzbn47z.
> Some of the comments I found t
Agreed. We've done this before and i bring it up yet again :)
Geronimo PMC used Yoko, Yoko failed, they ended up absorbing most of the code.
-- dims
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's another angle to the incubating release issue. We alread
Hi,
Here's another angle to the incubating release issue. We already
discussed this lately in relation to Apache FtpServer and the
JSecurity podling, see http://markmail.org/message/g23r7rvwvbzbn47z.
Some of the comments I found troubling were "You will probably not
release this code to an unsuspe
12 matches
Mail list logo
