The vote passes with 4 +1 (all pmc members) and no other votes.
I'll get to work getting the binaries and site pushed out. As usual, it
will take a little while for the images to get synced to the mirrors.
Thanks!
Joe
Joe Bohn wrote:
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary
+1
Jarek
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary purpose for this release is to utilize the newly released
genesis 1.5 which included some enhancements to facilitate maven site
generation. There are also some
+1
Jay
Joe Bohn wrote:
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary purpose for this release is to utilize the newly released
genesis 1.5 which included some enhancements to facilitate maven site
generation. There are also some minor changes in specs-parent to
facilitate maven site
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary purpose for this release is to utilize the newly released
genesis 1.5 which included some enhancements to facilitate maven site
generation. There are also some minor changes in specs-parent to
facilitate maven site generation. Once released
+1
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary purpose for this release is to utilize the newly released
genesis 1.5 which included some enhancements to facilitate maven site
generation. There are also some minor changes in specs-parent to
facilitate maven
Here's my +1
Joe
Joe Bohn wrote:
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary purpose for this release is to utilize the newly released
genesis 1.5 which included some enhancements to facilitate maven site
generation. There are also some minor changes in specs-parent to
facilitate
Which specs do we need to release before genesis 2 is available?
thanks
david jencks
On Oct 28, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
This is a vote for specs-parent 1.6.
The primary purpose for this release is to utilize the newly
released genesis 1.5 which included some enhancements to
The vote concludes with 6 +1 votes (binding) and no other votes
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 12, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar, see https://
I did the release...
In addition to the questions on genesis, I'm wondering about the site
structure.
I put specs-parent at
geronimo.apache.org/maven/specs/specs-parent/1.5
and servlet-2.5 at
geronimo.apache.org/maven/specs/geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/1.2
These are slightly different from
+1
Joe
David Jencks wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar,
see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the proposed fix in their trunk.
While working to upgrade to
+1
++Vamsi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:33 AM, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar, see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the
+1 Thanks for pulling in the GERONIMO-3896 patch.
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar,
see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the proposed
+1
Jarek
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:03 PM, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar, see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the
+1
Jay
David Jencks wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar, see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the proposed fix in their trunk.
While working to upgrade to
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar, see https://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the proposed fix in their trunk.
While working to upgrade to genesis-1.4 and thus release a new
+1
david jencks
On Mar 12, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi,
(dependent on genesis 1.4 take 5 release vote passing).
A user recently reported a bug in the servlet spec jar, see https://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3896
Tomcat has accepted the proposed fix in their
Thanks for handling that on my behalf, Kevan.
My holiday in Mexico is nearly finished now ;-)
And for the record, here´s my +1
On Feb 6, 2008 1:47 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Guillaume is away (hopefully on a well-earned holiday), I'm calling
this vote, in his stead.
This
Since Guillaume is away (hopefully on a well-earned holiday), I'm
calling this vote, in his stead.
This vote passes with 8 +1 votes and no others. Note that I'm counting
Guillaume as a '+1', although he didn't explicitly state this.
I'll start distributing the binaries.
--kevan
On Feb 1,
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
+1
Considering TCK has passed...
++Vamsi
On Feb 1, 2008 4:34 PM, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
On Feb 5, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Why wait? Enough time has passed and I think we have enough votes.
I'm not exactly sure what is necessary to finally release these but
I'm willing to help.
Well, seemed like there were a relatively small number of votes, and I
forgot to
+1 given TCK passed.
-Donald
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
+1
david jencks
On Feb 1, 2008, at 3:04 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-
activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-
annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
+1
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
+1
Jay
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
+1
All TCK tests passed with these candidate specs.
Joe
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
Third try ...
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0.1/
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
is the charm... ;-)
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Third try ...
is the charm... ;-)
Tags are here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.2/
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/
On Aug 4, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:
As a result of recent discussion on the legal-discuss list it has
become clear to me that I don't understand whether or not we are
allowed to redistribute sun schemas and in what form or under
After a little more discussion on legal-discuss and considering that
the legal-discuss discussion is about cddl licensed schemas which are
not the ones we are using and we are following the same procedure we
have used before I'm reinstating my +1 vote.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 4, 2007,
As a result of recent discussion on the legal-discuss list it has
become clear to me that I don't understand whether or not we are
allowed to redistribute sun schemas and in what form or under what
license so I have to withdraw my vote for
http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/geronimo-
On Aug 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:
As a result of recent discussion on the legal-discuss list it has
become clear to me that I don't understand whether or not we are
allowed to redistribute sun schemas and in what form or under what
license so I have to withdraw my vote for
Hi Jarek, There apparently is a bug in the 2.0.2 version of the
maven-source-plugin code that is causing this behavior. The latest 2.0.3 version
of the plugin fixes this problem. That was a good find. Thanks much
Jarek Gawor wrote:
I'm +1 on all but...
I think the
HI Kevan/David, I fully understand, but I'm not sure it makes much sense to
release the other two yet since they are both dependent on the servlet spec. At
this point based on these legal issues and the fact that I would like to ensure
they are all released using the latest maven-source-plugin,
On Aug 4, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
HI Kevan/David, I fully understand, but I'm not sure it makes much
sense to release the other two yet since they are both dependent on
the servlet spec. At this point based on these legal issues and the
fact that I would like to ensure they
+1
david jencks
On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
+1
David
On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
I'm +1 on all but...
I think the geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1-sources.jar should be
re-generated. Looks like the source files are duplicated. They are
placed in the right package name directory and also in the root
directory (without the package name).
Jarek
On 7/30/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL
+1
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
+1
On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
+1
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
I was looking at the schemas included in the servlet specs jar:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1/src/main/schema/
Why are the following not included?
javaee_5.xsd
javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
Why is j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
+1
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
I have not ever reviewed/voted on specs and I wanted to know what should
be checked before voting.
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The
On Jul 31, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
I have not ever reviewed/voted on specs and I wanted to know what
should be checked before voting.
Hi Jay,
Good question. Here's a start of a list
1. Do the poms look correct?
2. Are the legal t's and i's crossed and dotted? License/Notice
On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
+1. Looks good. One comment -- I'm not a big fan of the NOTICE file
Ok, good info to know. Thanks
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
+1. Looks good. One
+1 for your first release Tim.
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/30/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar
+1
-Donald
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
+1 ... good job
On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo
specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
+1
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
Hi, Please review and vote on the release of the following Geronimo specs:
-- geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0
-- geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1
The corresponding tar files are here:
http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/geronimo-jacc_1.1_spec-1.0.tar.gz
The voting ends with 11 ayes. I shall release the specs now.
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications
+1
Joe
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2/
Voting concludes on
+1
Jarek
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
Btw, I assume you meant Friday the 13th, right?
Jarek
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
+1
Lin
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
Yeah.. Maybe I didn't want to spook this vote again with a Friday the
13th deadline ;-)
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/10/07, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, I assume you meant Friday the 13th, right?
Jarek
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had
+1
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
+1
Vamsi
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
+1
Jacek
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
+1
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
And my +1 too
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/10/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the
+1
-Donald
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The activation and stax specs had almost passed the vote the first
time around. It got dinged on missing scm section in the poms. I have
fixed it now and am resubmitting them for a vote.
Please review the specifications located at
+1
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections
+1
Vamsi
On 6/9/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/
~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
Thanks for your critical eyes.
OK. In my eyes, this vote has
Kevan,
I'll work on it.
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/9/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
issues so I'll spin
On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Kevan,
I'll work on it.
Cool. Thanks, Prasad.
--kevan
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
now (not it!) I think we
+1 on releasing these specs.
Lin
Jarek Gawor wrote:
I second that. I'm also waiting for Activation spec to be released in
order to publish a new javamail snapshot (need latest javamail for
Axis2).
Jarek
On 7/4/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless someone actually wants to try to
Unless someone actually wants to try to fix the scm sections right
now (not it!) I think we should release the existing stax, jacc and
activation specs.
Either that or delete the questionable scm sections since it doesn't
seem to be actually possible to get them right and release that.
+1
Anita
--- Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml.
I have dropped
+1 ...
On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml.
I have dropped
On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml.
I have dropped jsp
+1
Vamsi
On 6/14/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml.
I have
+1
Jarek
On 6/14/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Vamsi
On 6/14/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over
+1
-Donald
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml.
I have dropped jsp specs from the vote
I am going to release Deployment as it passed with all +1's The
other specs either had issues or were dependent on specs that had
issues so I'll spin up a new vote for them.
Thanks for your critical eyes.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml.
I have dropped jsp specs from the vote now.
ws-metadata will have a 3 digit
do none of the spec releases get md5 sums nor pgp signatures?
Filip
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2
The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote
over the past weekend was to add the scm section
Hi Filip,
Like Ragu, its in there. Looks like Prasad provided the tar ball of
the artifacts as they'd reside in the Maven Repo:
geronimo-j2ee-management_1.1_spec-1.0/
geronimo-j2ee-management_1.1_spec-1.0/org/
geronimo-j2ee-management_1.1_spec-1.0/org/apache/
On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:32 AM, David Jencks wrote:
el: + 0.1 missing scm section in pom.xml
j2ee-management: +0.1 missing scm section in pom.xml. Is the spec
still called j2ee management?
jsp-2.1: -1 unless the comments in the following files are not
from sun or there is a written
+1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
Thanks
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday,
+1
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 2300 ET.
Cheers
Prasad
+1
Note -- I am planning to replace Geronimo's copy of the EL and JSP
specs with the originals from Tomcat when they release and publish
the next stable version to maven central. See:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200705.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Joe
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the block
and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 1800 ET.
Thanks
+1
Joe
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th at 2300 ET.
Cheers
Prasad
+1
The geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec-1.1-sources.jar has some extra source
files in it. But the binary looks ok.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Jun 8, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please review the specifications located at http://
people.apache.org/~hogstrom/specs-rc1/
We are voting these
+1
Anita
--- Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review the specifications located at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc1/
We are voting these in a block. Failures will be removed from the
block and others will proceed forward.
Voting concludes on Monday, June 11th
A couple of questions about the spec releases:
1) Why does activation-1.1 still have a trunk branch in svn?
2) Why hasn't the javamail-1.4 spec been released? Geronimo has an
indirect dependency on the 1.4 spec through the javamail uber-jar, which
also needs to made into a release.
Rick
Activation: + 0.1 pom is missing scm section
Jacc: +1
Deployment : +1
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the sun
explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd and
javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is missing
in pom
Stax:
el: + 0.1 missing scm section in pom.xml
j2ee-management: +0.1 missing scm section in pom.xml. Is the spec
still called j2ee management?
jsp-2.1: -1 unless the comments in the following files are not from
sun or there is a written licensing trail showing we can redistribute
them:
---
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:07 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Servlet: -1 unless someone can explain why its ok to include the
sun explanatory comments in javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_2.dtd
and javax/servlet/resources/web-app_2_5.xsd. Also scm section is
missing in pom
I mentioned earlier that
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
