does this answer OUR issues raised in the Wiki discussion
on the OEJB ML?
-------- Original Message --------
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by 10.114.177.5 with SMTP id z5cs238275wae; Sun, 23 Mar
2008 16:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.36.1 with SMTP id j1mr10344177waj.119.1206314044099;
Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.2])
by mx.google.com with SMTP id n32si13865626wag.13.2008.03.23.16.14.04;
Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
designates 140.211.11.2 as permitted sender) client-ip=140.211.11.2;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
designates 140.211.11.2 as permitted sender)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 34491 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2008 23:14:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 34480 invoked by uid 99); 23 Mar 2008 23:14:02 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org)
(140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Mar
2008 16:14:02 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [63.246.7.16] (HELO mail.mulesource.com) (63.246.7.16)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:13:20 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
mail.mulesource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EDD1AE0901 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:13:31 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Score: -1.218
X-Spam-Level:
Received: from mail.mulesource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
(mail.mulesource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id aLAutGE0Tkc6 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008
18:13:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [71.141.146.140]) by
mail.mulesource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C4A2900BCD for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:13:27 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:13:23 -0700
From: Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Confluence Based Website Access Control
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Old-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.218 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=0.404, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Also the other wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/general/ doesn't follow
this policy AFAICT. Why does confluence have to?
Luciano Resende wrote:
Based on previous discussion [1], the Tuscany PPMC has voted to grant
some some community members, with proper CLA on file, to have write
access to the Confluence wiki website. Is this NOT acceptable anymore
?
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg14390.html
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a reminder to all PMC Members and podlings: no one is to have write
access to a Confluence-backed web site who is not a Committer on the
project.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
