6. April 2015 07:45
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex Mavenizer 1.0.0
>
>
>
>On 4/5/15, 4:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>> Regarding the "tukaani" package. It's a dependency of the
>&g
he Notice (Year) and the Readme which should now
match the refactoring.
Chris
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 6. April 2015 07:45
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex Mavenizer 1.0.0
On 4/5/15, 4:10 PM,
On 4/5/15, 4:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Regarding the "tukaani" package. It's a dependency of the
>>apache-commons compress library.
>
>It also not bundled in the source so there no need to modify the LICENCE
>or NOTICE for the source package.
I wasn’t suggesting a LICENSE or NOTI
On 4/5/15, 2:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Well the entire converter is split up into several modules.
>- The API modules (converter, retriever, deployer)
>- The implementation modules for each of these.
>- The core module, which puts them all together.
>
>That's why the flex-sdk-converter-1
Hi,
> Argh ... sorry for the early VOTE thread ... forgott about that. Will try to
> do it right next time.
No harm done you can easily cancel it (if it's needed).
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> Regarding the "tukaani" package. It's a dependency of the apache-commons
> compress library.
It also not bundled in the source so there no need to modify the LICENCE or
NOTICE for the source package.
> But on the Apache Commons page it says it's Public Domain
> (http://commons.apache.or
ache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex Mavenizer 1.0.0
Hi Chris,
Looks pretty good. IMO, in the new release process you would not have started a
vote thread until we got a chance to pick through the source package. Then I’d
be more tempted to fix minor stuff in the README and other do
5 01:45
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex Mavenizer 1.0.0
Hi,
Everything looks good to me (LICENCE and NOTICE, no binary files, all source
code has headers, compiles from source, pom looks good etc etc). Only one very
minor issue wrong year in NOTICE file (2014 r
Hi Chris,
Looks pretty good. IMO, in the new release process you would not have
started a vote thread until we got a chance to pick through the source
package. Then I’d be more tempted to fix minor stuff in the README and
other docs. Once a vote is under way I’m less likely to do so.
Anyway, th
Hi,
Everything looks good to me (LICENCE and NOTICE, no binary files, all source
code has headers, compiles from source, pom looks good etc etc). Only one very
minor issue wrong year in NOTICE file (2014 rather than 2015).
Enough to give it a +1 vote IMO but I'm not sure how to use or test what
This is the discussion thread to the Apache Flex Mavenizer 1.0.0 vote thread.
Chris
11 matches
Mail list logo
