On 10/14/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert,
the aRAT tool is indeed very helpful.
As a side note: would you consider to commit the attached patch?
I think it would make life easier to many since the String.contains(...)
method is deprecated in recent JDK versions.
thanks
If you tried to use the release and it is broken, you have a ground for
-1 vote, but if you expected a Makefile in the src folder, and it wasn't
there (e.g. because the build procedure is a little more involved than
that), you probably don't.
For what it's probably not worth, I'd like to point
On Oct 14, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of
diff
I am with Alan on that - Leo's comment when put in perspective equals
to "Incubator should not have any guidelines at all for the new
projects, and every vote is decided based on the people's mood at the
moment". That's probably not what he meant..?
But in any event clear guidelines includi
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of
difference
should not be a release criteria for the In
On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:28 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other than wait for Robert's scanning tool? :-)
no need to wait: get the source (http://code.google.com/p/arat/) and
run the RAT against the source distribution (i'll improved b
Finally I tried both options using the ASL2, nothing happens (seems like a good
sign). Not documented so far ... I would say ...
Forget it for the moment...
Jacques
> Jacopo,
>
> I just realized that in Eclipse 3.2 you can define your "own" licence
> (Windows/ Preference) and I think use it wit
Jacopo,
I just realized that in Eclipse 3.2 you can define your "own" licence (Windows/
Preference) and I think use it with the "Fix
Copyrights" and "Advanced Fix Copyrights" options.
I tried it before but whitout having defined "my" licence (so I had bad
results). Have you tried it even if I gu
Robert,
the aRAT tool is indeed very helpful.
As a side note: would you consider to commit the attached patch?
I think it would make life easier to many since the String.contains(...)
method is deprecated in recent JDK versions.
Thanks,
Jacopo
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/12/06, Noe
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?
ASF release processes work because people
On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:28 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other than wait for Robert's scanning tool? :-)
no need to wait: get the source (http://code.google.com/p/arat/) and
run the RAT against the source distribution (i'll improved bi
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other than wait for Robert's scanning tool? :-)
no need to wait: get the source (http://code.google.com/p/arat/) and
run the RAT against the source distribution (i'll improved binary will
come later). the output is very unfriendly but wha
On 10/12/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...The only requirements ASF should enforce on projects is that they
comply with the basic principles of the ASF in a legal and community
sense. Anything else should be handled by the community/project
itself, including how to compose a re
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we
ought to focus on actual requirements, such as:
Licensin
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> the reason i didn't +1 wasn't anything to do with the unpacking but
> the fact that there are a lot of files without license headers and
> so of dubious original.
:-)
> > what those actual requirements are should be documented so that the
> > projects aren't surpri
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
> > When the Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we
> > ought to focus on actual requirements, such as:
> > Licensing
> > Notification
> > Signing (if
Endre,
I think you are missing the community part of ASF. ASF is not a
company, nor a big old business. It is a community with a variety of
projects, and as such a variety of packaging demands and wishes.
I like the idea of a (pretty) low bar entry to Apache where the only
criteria are the ones
> Imo ASF has enough written and unwritten rules. Following discussions
> on this forum since a few weeks feels like making the transition from
> a small young company to a large old one, where procedures and
> politics are more prevalent than a more practical 'can do' spirit.
It's also often the
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
On 10/12/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
>> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
>
> Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback,
and
> should be considered by projects. But does
On 10/12/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
>> packaging,
>> there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
IMO
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary.
> > this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to
> > incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src.
> I
On 10/12/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
>> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
>
> Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
> should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the
Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we ought to
focus on
actual requirements, such as:
Licensing
Notification
Signing
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
In my opinion, yes.
This is because
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
--- Noel
---
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?
Yes, agreed,
Hi,
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?
Yes, agreed, +1. This is a technic
28 matches
Mail list logo
