Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 22:22 +1000, Dion Gillard wrote: What usually goes in that for 1.0? The changes from the most recent pre-1.0 release (ie distribution available via the official downloads page). Email, of course, has never made a release of any sort. However I would still document any

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 18:18 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 22:22 +1000, Dion Gillard wrote: What usually goes in that for 1.0? The changes from the most recent pre-1.0 release (ie distribution available via the official downloads page). Email, of course, has never

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

[AARGH - I hate top-posting!!] It certainly seems like email is generally ready for release. I think one more RC and a new VOTE thread would be a good idea, as the vote thread from december last year really can't be continued now :-). Besides there are a few minor things that need fixing: ===

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On 6/22/05, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [AARGH - I hate top-posting!!] It certainly seems like email is generally ready for release. I think one more RC and a new VOTE thread would be a good idea, as the vote thread from december last year really can't be continued now :-).

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On 6/22/05, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [AARGH - I hate top-posting!!] It certainly seems like email is generally ready for release. I think one more RC and a new VOTE thread would be a good idea, as the vote thread from december last year really can't be continued now :-).

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On 6/22/05, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/22/05, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] === code * Why does method Email.setHeaders take a Hashtable parameter? If this is an attempt to get the Email class to support JVM1.1 it won't work because this class also

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 00:04 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: [AARGH - I hate top-posting!!] It certainly seems like email is generally ready for release. I think one more RC and a new VOTE thread would be a good idea, as the vote thread from december last year really can't be continued now

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

+1 Can everybody just vote? Or is this only for committers? Regards, Matthijs robert burrell donkin wrote: On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 00:04 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: [AARGH - I hate top-posting!!] It certainly seems like email is generally ready for release. I think one more RC and a

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 23:32 +0200, Matthijs Wensveen wrote: +1 Can everybody just vote? Or is this only for committers? anyone can vote (indeed, everyone is encouraged to) but only some votes are binding (notably the votes of the committers). your vote is an expression of support (which will

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

From what I can tell, the distributions below needed to be signed differently and more votes are still needed. I'm +1 on the release, but believe we need to repackage for the release. Anyone else care to vote or have opinions about the distribution? On 3/12/05, Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

I'm using the commons-email RC4 on a project I'm working on and I've no problems to report. It seems that this project is quite stable. I'm not sure if my vote counts for something but if it does I'm a +1. Ramiro Pereira de Magalhães Dion Gillard wrote: From what I can tell, the

RE: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status The gpg docs are here http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html and yes, you need to generate a keypair first before trying to sign something. I don't know if it is ok to gen and store keys on apache boxes, though. Anyone know? If you can get Cygwin

RE: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

documentation about ascii armouring, but no details on how to do it, just that it exists. Eric -Original Message- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 9:01 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

RE: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

documentation about ascii armouring, but no details on how to do it, just that it exists. Eric -Original Message- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 9:01 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

, but no details on how to do it, just that it exists. Eric -Original Message- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 9:01 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status hi eric could you ascii

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

-8- [X] +1 Promote RC4 to commons-email-1.0 [ ] +0 In favour of this release [ ] -0 Against this release [ ] -1 Do not release RC4 Thanks Eric! Eric Pugh wrote: Hi all, A

[VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

Hi all, A couple of packaging issues were discovered in Email 1.0 RC3. I was encouraged to fix them and then call for a fresh vote, so I appreciate the understanding of the community that the (now) 4 release candidates it's taken to get email to 1.0. My first time signing a project. The

Re: [VOTE] [email] promote RC4 to 1.0 status

hi eric could you ascii armour the signatures? (it's not essential but it makes them a lot nicer to read and download) - robert On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:30, Eric Pugh wrote: Hi all, A couple of packaging issues were discovered in Email 1.0 RC3. I was encouraged to fix them and then call