: reflect
Affects Versions: 2.5, 2.4, 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, 2.0
Reporter: David Blevins
Should be possible to put properties into the ObjectRecipe without prior
knowledge if the class actually has that property.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think
+1
-David
On Aug 30, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
It seems there are problems releasing Genesis,
which XBean depends on.
Should we remove this dependency and switch back
to our old pom ?
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Congratulations, Anita!
-David
On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
All,
We're pleased to let you know that we have a new committer in our
midst.
Anita Kulshreshtha has recently accepted an invitation to join the
Geronimo project. Anita has been active on Geronimo for
On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
(it builds, but can't test it out as there's no introductory
materials to help me doing another step forward).
We probably won't be able to get you up to speed in the space of a
vote, but I'd recommend this doc:
+1 Thanks for fixing!
-David
On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have uploaded a new 2.6 release at the same location, which
fix the missing LICENSE/NOTICE files problem.
Dain, please, could you recheck (and remove your -1) ?
On 8/28/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nothing to do with easy vs hard, btw):
On Jan 29, 2006, at 1:41 PM, David Blevins wrote:
1. issuing new versions of jars that don't change creates a
confusing mess in public repos and classpaths.
2. snapshots and new jars off all the specs is a terrible way to
deal with one or two edge cases
On Aug 27, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
[+1] Publish Genesis 1.0 to m2 central
-David
+1
-David
On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have tagged the xbean-2.6 branch
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/tags/xbean-2.6/
and uploaded a version at
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.6/org/apache/xbean/
Please vote.
Here's my +1
As soon as
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2349?page=comments#action_12431084
]
David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-2349:
-
+1
jta 1.1 support with container manager jpa support in transaction module
On Aug 28, 2006, at 2:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:
IIUC currently all the references in a components enc are wrapped
in a CachingReference. For EntityManager lookups I believe we need
non-caching references since EntityManagers are not supposed to be
shared between threads. My current
)
Components: specs
Reporter: David Blevins
Assigned To: David Blevins
Back in I think March, I created a branch for implementing the Java EE 5 specs
while the specs were still being defined. The specs went final in May and
several projects need these specs. We need to get
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2357?page=all ]
David Blevins updated GERONIMO-2357:
Attachment: GERONIMO-2357-1.patch
Move java ee 5 specs into specs trunk
-
Key: GERONIMO-2357
)
Components: specs
Reporter: David Blevins
Assigned To: David Blevins
Attachments: GERONIMO-2358-1.patch
Back in I think March, I created a branch for implementing the Java EE 5 specs
while the specs were still being defined. The specs went final in May
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2358?page=all ]
David Blevins updated GERONIMO-2358:
Attachment: GERONIMO-2358-1.patch
Move java ee 5 specs into specs trunk
-
Key: GERONIMO-2358
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2357?page=all ]
David Blevins closed GERONIMO-2357.
---
Resolution: Duplicate
Had to create a new issue because issues of type 'Task' can't be entered into
the RTC system and cannot be converted to any RTC
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2358
Back in I think March, I created a branch for implementing the Java
EE 5 specs while the specs were still being defined. The specs went
final in May and several projects need these specs. We need to get
them out of the experimental branch
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:54 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Um... why don't you just do this?
Didn't think I could move something into trunk without a vote. But I
see the servlet 2.5 stuff is in, so I guess I have no idea.
-David
--jason
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:34 PM, David Blevins wrote
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I don't think that using version ranges really helps make anything
easier or simpler.
How is it confusing to have just one version number for all specs?
Anything else seems to induce much more confusion, for us and them.
If the confusion
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
The pom is part of the release.
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
The only reason we've had to re-release these is because the poms
of a couple have changed. We can fix that with version ranges.
Meaning, if we add version
On Aug 25, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think David's comments on geronimo dev are spot on.
Begin forwarded message:
More thoughts on the where and how topic.
So far my thoughts on how; review to your satisfaction and
So anyone have any thoughts on this? I'll assume there's no support
unless I hear otherwise.
-David
On Aug 23, 2006, at 1:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and
how.
More thoughts
an idea of
what things need to be updated.
-David
--jason
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Assuming you did have access to the box, what steps would be
required to get things setup? I know I'm asking an unnatural
question as I typically start my thinking while staring
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and
how.
More thoughts on the where and how topic.
So far my thoughts on how; review to your satisfaction and +1, 72
hour cut off.
As far as where
I'm inclined to say
Just a correction
On Aug 23, 2006, at 1:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and
how.
More thoughts on the where and how topic.
So far my thoughts on how; review to your
Any thoughts?
-David
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:25 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Would we loose that cool slurp in all the javadoc and make
documentation feature? Guessing we'd have to re-implement that
somehow.
-David
On Aug 13, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
It seems that nobody
I thought we were using the javadoc comments exposed by qdox to
generate html docs, annotated schemas and whatnot.
-David
On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
What do you mean by slurp in all the javadoc and make documentation.
On 8/24/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED
Switching xbean-spring to java 5 is fine for me.
On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
FYI, I started this thread, just before qdox 1.6 has been released,
but
take a look at http://joe.truemesh.com/blog/000642.html.
But I think the discussion on shifting to java 5 and
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have checked it in /sandbox/car-maven-plugin until we find on
an agreement for its future
location.
Yay! I can really use this... Thanks for making it.
-David
On 8/23/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 on adding
it
Do we really want xbean dependent on genesis? Seems like it's not
working out too well.
-David
Begin forwarded message:
From: Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 23, 2006 1:44:02 PM PDT
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Car maven plugin dedicated to G 1.1
Assuming you did have access to the box, what steps would be required
to get things setup? I know I'm asking an unnatural question as I
typically start my thinking while staring at the command prompt and
type commands iteratively till things work. But I'm just thinking if
we could maybe
On Aug 21, 2006, at 11:09 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Close our eyes?
Why should it matter? They can all live in the same tree... just
some with 1.5 and some with 1.4 compiles.
I think you read the email too fast :)
-David
--jason
On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:44 PM, David Blevins wrote
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 22, 2006, at 1:37 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 21, 2006, at 9:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 21, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
As long as we have inter-dependencies between specs (e.g.
javamail depends
On Aug 22, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Apache Geronimo has been operating mostly under the
Review-Then-Commit model for a couple of months now,
and I think the issues the change was intended to
highlight have been .. well,
On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
From the peanut gallery...
On 23/08/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and
how.
That said, I've stared at this email for an hour after writing the
above sentence and am
You can put it here for now http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/
specs/branches/jee5_exp/
When Jason's done with the new spec layout, I'll be working on moving
those in to trunk.
-David
On Aug 20, 2006, at 5:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I've implemented the jta 1.1 feature locally and
On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
You can put it here for now http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
geronimo/specs/branches/jee5_exp/
When Jason's done with the new spec layout, I'll be working on
moving those in to trunk.
-David
On Aug 20, 2006, at 5:41 PM, David Jencks wrote
On Aug 21, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
As long as we have inter-dependencies between specs (e.g. javamail
depends on activation; jaxrpc on saaj, qname, and servlet; and
especially geronimo-spec-j2ee depends on everything), I'm not
convinced that this really makes things any
On Aug 21, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
I think the source of complexity is the granularity of versioning
we're trying to apply to specs... I wonder if the simplest course
of action is to stop releasing individually versioned specs, and
instead always release all specs. When an
I like single config files too. This is kind of a different
experiment. I was basically thinking about the .svn and CVS dirs in
a repository and thought Hey, it'd be cool to do something similar
in an app server Maybe neat to put meta-data about the directory
layout *in* the
I personally don't know why we bother to regenerate that tree on
every build as those schemas are not going to change. Let's just
build them once, publish the jars, delete the schemas and be done
with it.
-David
On Aug 18, 2006, at 9:45 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 18, 2006, at 9:22
+1
-David
On Aug 18, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
PROPOSAL:
1. Each spec will no longer be split up into trunk+branches+tags.
There will instead be one trunk+branches+tags for all specs laid
out as follows:
specs/trunk/pom.xml
specs/trunk/artifactId
It works great. We've used it in the past for switching to pre-
release branches, etc.
-David
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:49 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Maybe... I've never used svn switch before... not sure I would
trust it ;-)
--jason
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:01 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On
On Aug 11, 2006, at 2:41 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:21 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm going to start a branch tomorrow to experiment with JPA stuff
Done. Got a branch up here:
- Revision 430900: /geronimo/branches/jpa-plugin
Didn't turn out to need this as I'm
Nice going, Guillaume!
-David
On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:02 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
Please join us in welcoming Guillaume who recently accepted an
invitation to join the Geronimo PMC. Guillaume is probably best
known for his work on Xbean and ServiceMix. Has always been
available to
change in first.
-David
David Blevins wrote:
Grrr, I'm missing mail again -- pulled it from the archives.
Thanks, Dain, for pointing out there was a message for me.
On 8/15/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David,
I am releasing the specs as a 1.1.1 release due to some changes
I guess I'd still prefer we do artifactId-version for the tag
names as maven does.
There's also a small catch in that the directories we've been using
are not the artifactIds.
-David
On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Does not really look like anything needs to be moved.
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do artifactId-version for the tag
names as maven does.
I'm planning on putting artifactId-version under artifactId/
but m2 handles this, all it needs it the root
On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I would post my notes about the
stuff I'm working on in colossus, but as usual I forgot. I posted
my note last week and then forgot again to tell anyone that they
were there. So here's the link
Hi Oleg,
On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:13 PM, System Architect wrote:
My company has started using Geronimo AS as our main deployment
platform and once it's there - I have to organize decent
developer's support for debugging application on it. We are using
Eclipse, so the easiest solution seems
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What is the status on 1.1.1 wrt this change? Can I go ahead and
make these changes?
My reading of Matt's note (which I agree with) is that you should
wait until 1.1.1 has been shipped
On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:38 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do artifactId-version for the
tag names as maven does.
I'm
I got OpenJPA to run with my JPA code. So we're looking real good.
On Aug 13, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
So far, it's just got a TopLink provider, but if people want to copy
that to create providers for Cayenne or OpenJPA or whatever, that
would be great. It basically just needs
Would we loose that cool slurp in all the javadoc and make
documentation feature? Guessing we'd have to re-implement that
somehow.
-David
On Aug 13, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
It seems that nobody work on QDox since several months.
(see
the
changes to JPA there?
That would be great. In fact all the jee5_exp specs could be
released. The related specifications went final so we should be good
to go.
-David
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:17 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I got OpenJPA to run with my JPA code. So we're looking real good.
On Aug 13
+1, it's gotten a bit awkward the way we have it now.
-David
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I think we should move the top-level trunk, tags and branches to
server/*. This will make the top-level of our repository more
consistent.
Specifically, I think we should:
svn
On Aug 12, 2006, at 2:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Seems like I'm walking in mid-conversation, but I hope I can add
some details.
Geez, I just had *seven* missing emails in this thread show up in my
mailbox. Not sure what's going on with the mail, but that explains
the strange gaps
Congrats Alan!
-David
On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
The Apache Geronimo PMC would like to let everyone know that Alan
Cabrera has accepted the invitation to join the Geronimo PMC. We
are excited to have Alan assisting with project oversight in
addition to his
Just in case you're not subscribed to community@
-David
Begin forwarded message:
From: david reid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 14, 2006 5:28:32 AM PDT
To: community@apache.org
Subject: AC US Hackathon
Reply-To: community@apache.org
It's that time again - another ApacheCon looms!
As a
On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Seems like I'm walking in mid-conversation, but I hope I can add some
details.
On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/11/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I understand where you are going
Seems like I'm walking in mid-conversation, but I hope I can add some
details.
On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/11/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I understand where you are going with this. I totally agree with
your thinking here. But...IIUC...in the
Great proposal, I like this. Comment below...
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
[...]
So, here is what I propose:
specs/trunk/pom.xml
specs/trunk/artifactId
specs/tags/artifactId/version
Have you thought about using specs/tags/artifactId-version for
the tag
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:21 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm going to start a branch tomorrow to experiment with JPA stuff
Done. Got a branch up here:
- Revision 430900: /geronimo/branches/jpa-plugin
Also threw up a wiki page:
- http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxSBOX/JPA+Plugin
I
/openejb-
persistence/
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/8/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What approach are you taking to get this done? I was thinking
to do
App-managed EntityManagers, the EntityManagerFactories looked up
through JNDI, and available to both web apps and ejbs
On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
So far the idea is to put an EntityManagerFactory in JNDI for each
persistence unit at java:comp/env/jpa/(persistence-unit-name) . The
problem is that every component type in Geronimo uses a different
GBean and attribute to hold the JNDI
On Aug 9, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I am not against moving transaction and connector bits to separate
peer trees... I am just trying to avoid us moving all modules to
separate trees which would be a massive painful nightmare. But, I
think that splitting off large/major chunks
2 David Blevins
3 Jeff Genender
4 Matt Hogstrom
- http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-19
[GERONIMO-2015] Let's replace JKS to PKCS12 key store type
- Assignee: Unassigned
- Reporter: Nikolay Chugunov
- Created: Fri May 12 14:54:17
On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
This is what I meant by top-level
Something like:
geronimo/
devtools/
daytrader/
transaction/
connector/
server/
xbean/
plugins/
gbuild/
:)
Then have branch, tags and
On Aug 10, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I wanted to get a general sense before discussing the details,
since there would be no
/8/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who is we and why SourceForge? I can certainly see having
Hibernate provider plugins and stuff there, but I definitely
intend
on writing the core bits in Geronimo svn.
we is myself and some folks at Chariot. At SourceForge
because 1)
we
Yay!
On Aug 9, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
With votes from Jeff, Jencks and Matt, I am going to committ this
patch today, so please let me know if you're going to commit
something significant so I can avoid conflicts :)
-dain
On Aug 7, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Looks like the testing of OpenEJB is good. I'd like to go ahead
with the tagging and bagging of OEJB 2.1.1. If there are no
objections I'll update branches/v2_1_1 to be 2.1.1 and then move it
to tags.
Great! Thanks for doing the
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-33?page=comments#action_12427051 ]
David Blevins commented on XBEAN-33:
You can paste automatically with the swizzle-confluence library. See
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SWIZZLE/Swizzle
So, doing any JEE 5 work basically requires us to drop JDK 1.4
support and go JDK 1.5 completely. The JEE 5 libraries all use
Generics and Enums and Annotations and just do not run in JDK 1.4.
At some point where going to have to drop 1.4. I don't know if we're
there yet, but OpenEJB 3
On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/8/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm hacking away at some way to allow people to use OpenJPA in their
apps -- don't know how that will turnout just yet -- and was thinking
a plugin would be best for that as it wouldn't force
Way to go TCK Dog :)
-David
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Please welcome Kevan Miller as the newest member of the Geronimo
PMC. Kevan recently accepted the invitation to join the PMC. As
such we now have an additional set of eyes to help with reviews as
well as other
Congrats Paul!
-David
On Aug 8, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
We're pleased to let you know that we have a new committer in our
midst. Paul McMahan has recently accepted an invitation to join
the Geronimo project. Paul has been active on Geronimo for several
months and
So who is we and why SourceForge? I can certainly see having
Hibernate provider plugins and stuff there, but I definitely intend
on writing the core bits in Geronimo svn.
More bellow... but in a different order.
On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
In the mean time, have you
and it will
handle the rest. It may need some tweaking, but it should put you in
the ballpark of what you need.
You can find the code here:
http://svn.codehaus.org/openejb/trunk/openejb3/container/openejb-
persistence/
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/8/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What
for that, though it
won't show you the votes unless you drill into the individual items.
If enough people want it (more than one or two), I'll hookup
something for our website.
-David
David Blevins wrote:
Thanks everyone for the praise :)
Because of all the positive feedback, I decided to put
On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 8/8/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who is we and why SourceForge? I can certainly see having
Hibernate provider plugins and stuff there, but I definitely intend
on writing the core bits in Geronimo svn.
we is myself
issue page and from there to the vote page. At
least not to my knowledge.
On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
As Hiram points out, you can go to JIRA itself for that, though
it won't show you the votes unless you drill into the individual
items.
-David
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so for this JPA plugin, the goal is to support application-managed
JPA for web apps.
It looks like a JPA EntityManager has a call to getTransaction
returning an EntityTransaction which you can used to begin and commit
transactions in the
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
As soon as you start an jta tx the jdbc resource adapter ought to
start complaining vociferously.
Vociferously? :) Oh, Mr. Jencks, how you make complaining sound so
classy Certainly much more palatable than many alternatives :)
I didn't figure there wasn't any harm in allowing the RTC system to
be used for more than what is currently required by PMC mandate. I
mean if someone really wants to have their work reviewed, more power
to them.
We can change it back if you prefer.
-David
On Aug 7, 2006, at 8:24 AM,
+1
-David
On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
+1 to remove the m1 build
-dain
Thanks everyone for the praise :)
Because of all the positive feedback, I decided to put a lot more
work into this. I've boiled everything down to a single Velocity
template that is now checked into our svn and anyone can edit. It's
located here:
Huh, I see you and Jason working *together* on the code. I know
you're not saying you don't want to work collaboratively with Jason
and co, so maybe you can give some suggestions on how you both might
collaborate better?
Just a comment about the whole no justification concept, that's
On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
People have been referring to things requiring votes as
'RTCs'.
Everyone *please* stop using RTC in this manner. RTC is a
development model; what it and CTR are concerned with are
patches. Please call them patches. Changes are
On Aug 2, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Fine...I prefer a field in JIRA so I can execute a single query.
I'll assume the patches are in JIRA anyway and its a great place
for comments too :)
On Aug 2, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
+1 [to jira]
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:45
On Aug 4, 2006, at 3:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GERONIMO-1862] Provide Ability to enable pass-by-reference
semantics for EJB calls
- Assignee: David Blevins
- Reporter: Matt Hogstrom
- Created: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
- Updated: Thu, 3 Aug
On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
So, if one votes on the issue that indicates it is a +1?
That'd be my first assumption.
-David
--jason
On Aug 4, 2006, at 4:28 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 4, 2006, at 3:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GERONIMO-1862] Provide
Thanks.
Since this report was just a demo, I've gone through some of the
JIRAs that had patches and owners, clicked their Begin RTC Review
buttons and am sending out a new report.
-David
On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Nice work David!
David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 4
On Aug 2, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Fine...I prefer a field in JIRA so I can execute a single query.
I'll assume the patches are in JIRA anyway and its a great place
for comments too :)
I was just looking into that. I already send a report every monday
of unassigned
On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 2, 2006, at 12:11 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I was just looking into that. I already send a report every
monday of unassigned JIRAs that contain patches. If i could get a
list of the votes too, I should be able to cook up something
I totally missed this email when it came out. This stuff rocks!
-David
On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I had been wanting to use Confluence as the primary Geronimo
website for a while now... and finally just went and created proof
of concept that it might actually work...
Reporter: David Blevins
Fix For: 2.6
The id attribute of the xbean tag should be optional and when not explicitly
specified should default to the name of the xbean tag itself. Such as
j:transactionManager id=transactionManager/
can just be:
j:transactionManager/
The schema can
starting with xbean-dev would be fine for me.
-David
On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Agreed, the traffic is not too high to require two separate mailing
lists yet.
On 8/1/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Actually, how
about we start with just an xbean-dev
Just back online after OSCON. Reading/replying on this thread one at
a time.
On Jul 28, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'm interested in setting up VMware Server on my GBuild boxes, since
my understanding is that the TCK is pretty single-threaded and we
ought to get better
On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
If I thought it was going to be possible to have multiple TCKs
running
simultaneously, I would, but that seems to be such a massive
undertaking that I'm not willing to do it myself. Do you think it's
easier than I'm speculating?
How hard
On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 7/28/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm no expert on how the TCK runs, but I do not believe that you need
a public IP. Though, with out a public IP, we can't use Cacti to
monitor the hosts, or ssh to them directly to admin
701 - 800 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
