[jira] [Commented] (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15207572#comment-15207572 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on DERBY-1032: Commit 1736262 from

[jira] [Commented] (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15171118#comment-15171118 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on DERBY-1032: Commit 1732771 from

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12428264 ] Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-1032: derby-1032-addtodist2.diff looks fine to me. Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12427135 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-1032: I would love to hear some feedback on the latest patch for this. Do we want to deprecate the frameworks scripts

Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

I haven't had a chance to test these, but I would love to see these go into the bin distribution. I think a README in the frameworks directory is a good thing to do, as well as a release note, as well as updating the docs. No harm in saying it multiple times in multiple ways. We should also

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12427419 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-1032: Committed derby-1032-v2.diff to trunk with revision 430668 (unix scripts) and 430677 (windows scripts). Two

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12425905 ] David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-1032: I am sensitive to this right now for some odd reason :). Shouldn't script files have the Apache license

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12425906 ] David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-1032: In bin/derby_common.sh: +# distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS, +#

Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

David Van Couvering (JIRA) wrote: [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12425906 ] David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-1032: In bin/derby_common.sh: +# distributed under the License

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12425907 ] David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-1032: At first glance these look good. I don't have the time to actually test them... Thanks for your work on

[jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12416463 ] Andrew McIntyre commented on DERBY-1032: For this change, I propose the following: * create new scripts which replicate the functionality provided by the scripts in

Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

I didn't follow how this solution is going to be backward-compatible. I'm assuming we'll be keeping the old ones around, perhaps invoking the new ones? David Andrew McIntyre (JIRA) wrote: [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1032?page=comments#action_12416463 ] Andrew McIntyre

Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1032) Create new scripts which follow common practice at Apache

On 6/16/06, David Van Couvering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't follow how this solution is going to be backward-compatible. I'm assuming we'll be keeping the old ones around, perhaps invoking the new ones? I was planning on leaving the old ones where they are, it's mentioned towards the end