[RESULT] [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

The vote to publish new releases of activation and javamail has passed with 8 +1 votes, no 0 votes and no -1 votes. Voting +1 were Rick McGuire Guillaume Nodet Alan Cabrera Jay McHugh Davanum Srinivas Jacek Laskowski Matt Hogstrom Kevan Miller

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

+1 Regards, Alan On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the activation 1.1 spec API. The artifact

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

+1 Jay Rick McGuire wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the activation 1.1 spec API. The artifact in question is

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 +1 Jay D. McHugh wrote: +1 Jay Rick McGuire wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

+1 Jacek On Dec 7, 2007 1:01 PM, Rick McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the activation 1.1 spec API. The

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

+1 On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the activation 1.1 spec API. The artifact in question is

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars +1 --kevan

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

+1 On Dec 7, 2007 1:01 PM, Rick McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the activation 1.1 spec API. The artifact

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

On Dec 7, 2007 1:36 PM, Rick McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guillaume Nodet wrote: I wasn't aware the parent pom had been released yesterday: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/1.3/ Did I miss something ? I wasn't sure a vote was needed on the parent

[VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

[ ] +1 - Release the jars [ ] 0 - No opinion [ ] -1 - Do not release the jars We're voting on the following which are required for the Geronimo 2.1 release: 1) Release 1.0.0 of the activation 1.1 spec API. The artifact in question is geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.1. This is the

Re: [VOTE] Release activation and jsvamail spec jars + javamail provider jars.

I wasn't aware the parent pom had been released yesterday: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/1.3/ Did I miss something ? Also, the associated tag (indicated in the pom) is missing: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/1_3 On Dec 7, 2007 1:01 PM,