Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread David Crossley
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Leo Simons
On 16-06-2005 17:00, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers commit access to the cocoon project. Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Sylvain Wallez
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers commit access to the cocoon project. Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that grants rw to @gump for just that file, at least I think it allows file-granularity. Even

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Upayavira
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers commit access to the cocoon project. Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that grants rw to @gump for just that file, at least I think it allows

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Upayavira
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo in it

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Leo Simons
On 17-06-2005 05:24, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should be quite trivial to add a rule to asf-authorization that grants rw to @gump for just that file, at least I think it allows file-granularity. Even better. Can we do it or is it something that infra@ has to do? All pmc

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. Hmm, so why don't

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-17 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time.

[PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Stefan Bodewig
Hi all, your own project definitions of commons-javaflow, commons-jci and lately spring break the Gump supplied definitions. We've been building svn trunk of commons-jci for weeks now, but it gets listed as failed because it doesn't produce a jar with your name. spring is an installed package

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Upayavira
Stefan, I've committed this patch to Cocoon trunk. I presume that is the correct place. Regards, Upayavira Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi all, your own project definitions of commons-javaflow, commons-jci and lately spring break the Gump supplied definitions. We've been building svn trunk of

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've committed this patch to Cocoon trunk. Many thanks. I presume that is the correct place. Until the Cocoon project is annoyed enough by our patches and moves the descriptor over to Gump land, I think it is. 8-) Stefan

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've committed this patch to Cocoon trunk. Many thanks. I presume that is the correct place. Until the Cocoon project is annoyed enough by our patches and moves the descriptor over to Gump land, I

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Le 16 juin 05, 14:58, Stefano Mazzocchi a crit : Now, I would be totally in favor of granting the gump committers commit access to the cocoon project... +1 -Bertrand smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo in it for many days? Like when you rename a jar but forget

Re: [PATCH][Gump] your definitions break Gump builds

2005-06-16 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's not a matter of being annoyed enough (we are already!), it's the fact that cocoon needs that file at build time. Hmm, so why don't you realize that you have a typo in it for many days? Like when