On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 07:43 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On 11/7/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > c) The svn log is confident [1] the antrun bit is needed due to a bug > > in the source plugin, but subsequent conversations not so [2]. What is > > it, IYO? Figure you're as good a resource for this question. > > Sorry, but my english language parser (an ancient german model from > 1963, so please bear with me) can't understand your question? > My reading of the email referred to at [2] is confirmation that the antrun bit *is* needed.
> > P.S: I never experienced votes with so much considerations. Perhaps we > should hide the POM in a zip file and add thousands of .java files, so > that people don't look so much ... ;-) Releases of other projects have gone through quite a few cycles too. It's just fortunate that in this case we don't need to build RC bundles each time :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
