Thank you all for the valuable inputs... to play safe I opened a
ticket [1] with legal for better clarity.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-663
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:30 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > In your source release anything in Category A is fair game. Things in
Hi,
> In your source release anything in Category A is fair game. Things in
> Category B are not. Things in Category X never are.
While correct, that’s not the full story; you also can’t have anything as a
dependency whose license is a category X one.
Kind Regards,
Justin
ket [2], it's not clear
> > if we can continue to use it or this dependency has to be removed.
> >
> > Guidance on this topic would be highly appreciated!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alex
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.
/3aa26113d7e88f0fd7d0331ec20fe392f343afb6/kogito-test-utils/pom.xml#L89-L99
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-526
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes/blob/3aa26113d7e88f0fd7d0331ec20fe392f343afb6/kogito-test-utils/pom.xml#L89-L99
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-526
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-uns
Test 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
F.
2. SkyWalking Infra e2e, https://github.com/apache/skywalking-infra-e2e
SkyWalking Infra E2E is the next-generation End-to-End Testing framework
that aims to help developers to set up, debug, and verify E2E tests with
ease. It’s built based on the lessons learned from tens of hundreds of test
cas
2018-01-23 17:36 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> FWIW, some build and test processes have a "generate-sources" and/or
> "generate-test-sources" step. Have you considered having a step in your
> test processes copy the source test files into a temporary folder and
> re
FWIW, some build and test processes have a "generate-sources" and/or
"generate-test-sources" step. Have you considered having a step in your
test processes copy the source test files into a temporary folder and
remove the headers as part of that step? Then you may not nee
OK, makes sense, thanks for these insights and ideas.
Gj
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> wrote:
>
>>...
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml
>> This is what line 2
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
>...
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml
> This is what line 2105 says:
> ...
Maybe grouping those exclusions by families would make it easier for
reviewers to understand them: first the one
lved?
[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-318
[2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-306
Thanks,
Gj
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> wrote:
>> ...we propose that we add a line to the R
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> ...we propose that we add a line to the README that says:
> "*/test/*/data folders contain test data and therefore may have no
> license headers"
I would prefer for that info to be added as comments in the file t
We have created one of many[1] issues dedicated to data files in
*/test/*data folders.
The point is that these are all data files, used by our tests, and if
license headers were to be added the tests would fail.
E.g., some tests make use of a position in the file, which would be
different (and
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
> aside...
>
> > ...
> > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
> for
>
> > which
I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
aside...
> ...
> I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
for
> which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail." The
> problem looki
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:03 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > > Apa
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we
On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament wrote:
> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are ta
>
>
> > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> Apache
> > license
> >
>
> This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
> th
John D. Ament created INCUBATOR-146:
---
Summary: Test
Key: INCUBATOR-146
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-146
Project: Incubator
Issue Type: Task
Reporter
John D. Ament created INCUBATOR-145:
---
Summary: test
Key: INCUBATOR-145
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-145
Project: Incubator
Issue Type: Task
Components
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
John D. Ament updated INCUBATOR-141:
Component/s: (was: LogoSubmission)
> Test
>
>
> Ke
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Roman Shaposhnik updated INCUBATOR-141:
---
Attachment: test.txt
This is a test attachment from a brand new account.
> T
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
John D. Ament updated INCUBATOR-141:
Attachment: thunder-christmas.jpg
> Test
>
>
> Key: I
John D. Ament created INCUBATOR-141:
---
Summary: Test
Key: INCUBATOR-141
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141
Project: Incubator
Issue Type: Task
Components
the contest hasn't officially started, AFAIK Sally's
driving it.
> Test ticket for Apache Incubator Logo Contest submissions
> -
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-139
> URL: https://issues.apache.
lacretaz] what's the latest on this? I've got a few
designers itching to submit their entries.
> Test ticket for Apache Incubator Logo Contest submissions
> -
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-139
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-139?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bertrand Delacretaz updated INCUBATOR-139:
--
Summary: Test ticket for Apache Incubator Logo Contest submissions (was
ignore this
ignore
ignore this internal test
. Please read this email carefully.
NOTICE: The ASF Confluence instance is planned to be upgraded this Saturday
22nd June 2013. Judging by the time taken to upgrade the test instance,
please expect the service to be in a down or read only state for the entire
day.
This email is to let you know
gt;
> -chip
>
> [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/cloudstack-marvin-test-suite.html
>
> 72 hours have passed with no objections. We will proceed with the import.
Thanks!
-test-suite.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Hi all,
more than 72h have passed and the current vote can be considered
closed and passes with the following resolution:
Three +1 binding votes from following PMCs:
* Olivier Lamy
* Christian Grobmeier
* Branko Čibej
No other votes have been casted.
I am going to promote artifacts for the
Hi Brane,
you are right, VOTE email should contain the direct link to the source
artifact, so reviewers' task is simplified.
I will include it in future releases VOTE threads, thanks for pointing.
For Onami-Test, the artifact was on Nexus[1].
Thanks for reviewing!
-Simo
[1]
On 23.01.2013 14:51, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> [ ] +1, let's get it rmblee!!!
> [ ] +/-0, fine, but consider to fix few issues before...
> [ ] -1, nope, because... (and please explain why)
>
> So IPMCs please cast your votes!
+1
I still wish the source package was easier to find.
-- Brane
Good morning IPMC,
The Apache Onami community has voted[1] the release of Apache
Onami-Test 1.4.0-incubating, collecting two IPMC votes from members
Olivier Lamy and Christian Grobmeier.
This is the changelist:
Bug
[ONAMI-25] - Rename the JUniceRunner as OnamiRunner
[ONAMI-28] - Do not use code
ignore
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:17 +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, wrote:
> > If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate,
> > distribute
> > or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all
> > copies of this messag
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, wrote:
> If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute
> or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all
> copies of this message and any attachments.
I don't believe I am the intended recipient of th
Please do not print this email unless it is absolutely necessary.
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are no
The vote for the OFBiz podling Test Snapshot Release 4.0.0 TS5 has
passed:
+1: 3: Robert Burrell Donkin, Yoav Shapira, David Welton
+0: 0
-1: 0
Being a Test Snapshot release we don't plan to "market" this
publicly, so we plan to end the process for this release with the
Hi Robert,
robert burrell donkin wrote:
...
but see comments by david and david later in this thread. i'm happy
that this is know resolved and hope that OfBiz may contact the
consortium and ask about offering under a different license in future.
Yes, this is something we will probably try to
On 11/7/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses
> but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the
> LICENSE file.
>
> apache has traditio
their (re)distribution more flexible.
On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for
this Test Snapshot release?
possibly
AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses
but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the
LIC
> I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I
> think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle
> it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files
> and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet.
> This way we
Hi,
On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
> >> internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now
> >> requesting a vote for review and approval from
On 11/7/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 11/2/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
>> internally approving th
On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 11/2/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval fr
On 11/2/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
group and the Incubator PMC.
+0
Unless we change the name to "open binary", I'm going to agree with
Robert and Justin. Source releases are "what we're about" here.
Craig
On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/4/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the same way it's used for any other p
On 11/4/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the same way it's used for any other project: as a record of the exact
source that created the binary distributions. the source is the
release. the binaries are conveniences for users.
+1. -- justin
-
On 11/4/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert, others interested,
I'm still not sure whether or not we will want to do this going
forward because I'm not sure how a source distribution would be used
for a project like OFBiz.
the same way it's used for any other project: as a rec
ture, this would be a good thing to include in
our Test Snapshot process, so I've added src distribution files for
this release.
They are listed on the release page here:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/wAE
For convenience I'll including the URLs below as well.
Thanks again to everyone fo
On 11/2/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
hi Jacopo
based on past comments in this list I'd like to add that this is a
pre-built release (e.g. the objects and Derby demo database are already
set up and packaged in the distribution); we did this because it can
take up to
If I'm not mistaken, we should be just about ready to graduate OFBiz.
It's doing very nicely, and the comunity continues to grow.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
-
ects and the db will be removed.
Jacopo
David E Jones wrote:
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
group and the Incubator PMC
The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 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
part of our tests that do not
include
> ASL headers. These files are expected output of tests, for example, we
> serialize a SDO to an xml file and compare the output file with the
> "expected result" file to verify the test passed. So... adding licence
> headers to these files is
to an xml file and compare the output file with the
"expected result" file to verify the test passed. So... adding licence
headers to these files is a bit of a pain as the code would never generate
the header as part of it's serialization!
yeh - aRat does raise false positives
"expected result" file to verify the test passed. So... adding licence
headers to these files is a bit of a pain as the code would never generate
the header as part of it's serialization!
So my questions:
1. Do these files require headers?
2. As an alternative, is it ok to add a NOT
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
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
l take the source distribution and
apply patches then build according to their system and then package.
helping downstream distributors helps acceptance of the project.
2 source distributions encourage developers. new developers are needed
to keep apache projects healthy.
In the past, as with this
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 bina
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 thr
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 S
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
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
done
On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an attempt to comprehend what the bindings are and how they work
for static versus EL types (static appears to be read-only, rather
than a static expression) I hacked up this extra test case which might
be interesting for others
In an attempt to comprehend what the bindings are and how they work for
static versus EL types (static appears to be read-only, rather than a
static expression) I hacked up this extra test case which might be
interesting for others...
Index: NodeContextImplTestCase.java
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 11:46 PM:
> > Understanding that "BEA has absolutely no intention of dropping
> > support of the XMLBeans project", do you feel that XMLBeans is ready
> > to leave the Incubator, or would it benefit from further stay?
> I think
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 11:46 PM:
>> 6 BEA-employed committers + 5 independent committers
>
>> I think there is definitely sufficient community interest to keep the
>> project going; however, it would probably move a lot slower if BEA
>> were to drop XMLBeans today.
>
> Un
> > Specifically, a comment like "it is important to get out official
> > (incubation) release files soon since users and developers are
> > waiting for a release to base their productive environments on"
> > makes me nervous.
> Maybe u missed the word incubation in brackets?
No, I saw it. But I
On Jun 15, 2004, at 2:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Mind you, building an end-user community is not an incubation
priority. We
care about IP and development community, and the latter ought to be
able to
participate directly from source control. Specifically, a comment
like "it
is important to
On 14 Jun 2004, at 23:07, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one
about independent committers to allow for vetoes)
IMHO, that would be a requirement for projects prior to *entering* the
incubator.
--
Steven Noelshtt
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 08:46, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> > Noel, have your concerns been addressed?
>
> I think so. They've been addressed in that they've been discussed. Steven
> has been watching Lenya closely, particularly recently, and seems convinced
> that there has been a
> 6 BEA-employed committers + 5 independent committers
> I think there is definitely sufficient community interest to keep the
> project going; however, it would probably move a lot slower if BEA
> were to drop XMLBeans today.
Understanding that "BEA has absolutely no intention of dropping suppor
Leo Simons wrote:
> Noel, have your concerns been addressed?
I think so. They've been addressed in that they've been discussed. Steven
has been watching Lenya closely, particularly recently, and seems convinced
that there has been a sea change in that community. Whether or not it
sticks remains
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I think the problem we are faced with is determining how to define
> a "healthy community" when used as a criterion for exiting the
> incubator.
I'm perfectly comfortable with adopting Justice Stewart's famous comment
when it comes to defining a healthy ASF community, rathe
Frankly: it is because of this apparent shift in attitude that I'm
feeling Lenya is finally getting ready.
yeah, baby, yeah! Let's add checkmarks next to:
# Demonstrate ability to tolerate and resolve conflict within the
community.
# Release plans are developed and excuted in public by the
Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one
about independent committers to allow for vetoes) and then leave the
rest
up to a voting body that will evaluate graduation against some general
guidelines. I also think the voting body should be the PPMC, which is
made up of
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 12:14 PM:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
>>>
>>> IMO, ther
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Leo Simons wrote:
> > > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > > > I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
> > >
> > > me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
> >
> > IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that
Steven Noels wrote:
On 14 Jun 2004, at 14:29, Michael Wechner wrote:
I am not sure about this. I think it would be better if people
would view "us" as individuals. I try to do so in the case
of other projects with various companies involved, and I think
it works well, at least for myself.
I unders
On 14 Jun 2004, at 14:29, Michael Wechner wrote:
I am not sure about this. I think it would be better if people
would view "us" as individuals. I try to do so in the case
of other projects with various companies involved, and I think
it works well, at least for myself.
I understand your subtle hint
On Jun 13, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Friday, June 11, 2004 2:24 PM:
I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
hmm. Do you have an opinion?
IMO, there ought to be a sufficient
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Bad code makes good communities.
For those who are not subscribed to lenya-dev: Not everyone there does agree
with that view (I do not).
Andreas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additio
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
