As Rick mentions, the updated artifacts are up, Niclas' concerns have
been resolved -- continue voting everybody :-)
regards,
Karl
On 7/16/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 15 July 2007 20:00, Karl Pauls wrote:
On 7/15/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
Karl Pauls wrote:
As Rick mentions, the updated artifacts are up, Niclas' concerns have
been resolved -- continue voting everybody :-)
Do I understand this right, that the binaries on that page have been
changed and some here voted on the first version while others now vote
on the corrected
+1 (restated :-)
On 7/16/07, Marcel Offermans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 (restated)
--
Karl Pauls
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 16 July 2007 15:21, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Karl Pauls wrote:
pom-1.0.0
bundleplugin-1.0.0
bunderepository-1.0.0
org.osgi.core-1.0.0
shell-1.0.0
shell.tui-1.0.0
+1
+1 (if that wasn't clear from earlier)
And I want to point out that I have verified all MD5 and signatures
+1
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 16 July 2007 15:21, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Karl Pauls wrote:
pom-1.0.0
bundleplugin-1.0.0
bunderepository-1.0.0
org.osgi.core-1.0.0
shell-1.0.0
shell.tui-1.0.0
+1
+1 (if that wasn't clear from earlier)
And I want to point out that I
+1 again
Karl Pauls wrote:
+1 (restated :-)
On 7/16/07, Marcel Offermans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 (restated)
On Jul 15, 2007, at 3:58 , Niclas Hedhman wrote:
License requirements is mostly about the many licenses saying
prominent
place to refer to where the license must be. IMHO, it should be
root folder
of artifact. But I think people has objected due to the nature of
Maven jars
are active
On 7/15/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 15 July 2007 07:56, Karl Pauls wrote:
So how do we proceed from here? I'd personally like to pause the vote
and update the source release artifacts to include the LICENSE and
NOTICE files in the root. Would that be a way for you to
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Karl Pauls wrote:
On 7/15/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 15 July 2007 07:56, Karl Pauls wrote:
So how do we proceed from here? I'd personally like to pause the vote
and update the source release artifacts to include the LICENSE and
NOTICE files
On Sunday 15 July 2007 20:00, Karl Pauls wrote:
On 7/15/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 15 July 2007 07:56, Karl Pauls wrote:
So how do we proceed from here? I'd personally like to pause the vote
and update the source release artifacts to include the LICENSE and
+1
On Saturday 14 July 2007 08:51, Karl Pauls wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-1.0.0.html
We ask that you please vote to approve these release archives:
[ ] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.0 sub-project releases.
[x] -1
First thing; One can't VETO a release, only codebase changes. So
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niclas wrote:
Second thing; The reason for the negative vote is a somewhat non-compliant
release format.
* LICENSE and NOTICE must be in root directory of the tarballs of the
source.
Apache is about Open SOURCE, and there are no requirements to distribute
a
On 7/14/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 08:51, Karl Pauls wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-1.0.0.html
We ask that you please vote to approve these release archives:
[ ] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.0 sub-project releases.
[x] -1
First
On Saturday 14 July 2007 21:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. However, we created release candidates hoping to get feedback early
rather than late...
Sorry that I wasn't available...
Releases needs to get more and more automated, so that the cycle can be
rapidly increased, to 4 times a year
Hi all,
Rick and I woud like to call a vote on the sub-projects for the 1.0.0
release. These sub-project releases are the initial root dependencies
for the framework release, which will follow shortly. Basically, they
should be the same as what we made available during the last week(s).
Namely,
+1
I tested the signatures and md5 sums and everything worked for me, but
we can always use more verifications...
- richard
Karl Pauls wrote:
Hi all,
Rick and I woud like to call a vote on the sub-projects for the 1.0.0
release. These sub-project releases are the initial root dependencies
+1
regards,
Karl
On 7/14/07, Richard S. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
I tested the signatures and md5 sums and everything worked for me, but
we can always use more verifications...
- richard
Karl Pauls wrote:
Hi all,
Rick and I woud like to call a vote on the sub-projects for the
18 matches
Mail list logo
