Thanks for bringing me into context, Phil. Of course, I agree with all your
points.
Jochen
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
developer
category for that component.
If his app _uses_ a Commons component, he is a user of that component.
This kind of users should indeed be encouraged to test snapshots, and
report
problems
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
developer
category for that component.
If his app _uses_ a Commons component, he is a user of that
component.
This kind of users should indeed be
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
developer
category for that component.
If his app _uses_ a Commons component, he is a user of
On 4/30/13 7:51 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
developer
category for that component.
If his app _uses_ a
On 30 April 2013 15:51, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
developer
category for
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
replicated to Maven Central?
Chas
On 4/30/13 8:28 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 April 2013 15:51, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Tue,
Le 30/04/2013 17:59, Honton, Charles a écrit :
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
replicated to Maven Central?
I don't know, but nightly builds are already pushed to the snapshot
repository:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles charles_hon...@intuit.com wrote:
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
replicated to Maven Central?
Not sure that question makes sense as posed.
If a build
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles charles_hon...@intuit.com wrote:
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot repository which is not
replicated to Maven Central?
Not sure that question
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles charles_hon...@intuit.com
wrote:
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote, to a Apache snapshot
On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles charles_hon...@intuit.com
wrote:
Is there any policy concern with publishing the binaries of alpha
releases, after vote,
On 30 April 2013 18:25, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles charles_hon...@intuit.com
wrote:
Is there any
On 4/30/13 10:29 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 18:25, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
Am 30.04.2013 17:17, schrieb Phil Steitz:
On 4/30/13 7:51 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:36:10 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 11:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
On 30.04.2013 00:01, Gilles wrote:
If someone doesn't develop a Commons component, he is not in the
developer
category
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/30/13 10:29 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 18:25, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 17:52, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30 April 2013 16:59, Honton, Charles
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
changes to an alpha2 release, as I will
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
changes to an alpha2 release, as I will need a bit more time to work on the
Trie interface and maybe add a fluent API
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
Please keep upwards compatibility to any
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
On 04/29/2013 04:51 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 19:36, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be
Sorry, hit wrong button - not yet used to the new GMail.
On 29 April 2013 19:36, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:47:15 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29,
Is less attention paid to the API for an alpha/beta?
Hen
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is nothing special. Even with alpha, or beta as part of the
version number, it is technically an ASF release, and therefore subject to
the full
On 28 April 2013 18:27, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
Is less attention paid to the API for an alpha/beta?
If the idea is to be able to change the API (possibly breaking
compatibility) then I don't think a Beta release is appropriate.
That would be for an Alpha release - and we
There is nothing special. Even with alpha, or beta as part of the
version number, it is technically an ASF release, and therefore subject to
the full blown process and rules.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I have seen that the log4j team
I think we can make it be the same as releasing a full release.
Gary
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:57, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have seen that the log4j team prepared a new beta for v2.
As collections 4 is very close to be ready, I'd like to know more about
the
32 matches
Mail list logo
