Am 01/01/2015 10:19 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Open issues were:
1) Decide on making 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2, whatever. This is solved, we are
going
to make a new release and call it 4.1.2.
2) Fix access to certificate
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Open issues were:
1) Decide on making 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2, whatever. This is solved, we are
going
to make a new release and call it 4.1.2.
On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Open issues were:
1) Decide on making 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2, whatever. This is solved, we are going
to make a new release and call it 4.1.2.
2) Fix access to certificate for signing. Still waiting for Infra, but I
can't
any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can
start making the release.
rgds
jan i
On Friday, December 26, 2014, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 26 December 2014 at 13:11, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pesce...@apache.org');
jan i wrote:
any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can
start making the release.
I believe we made progress on everything that is under our control.
Maybe it's good that I repeat the information here so that we can track
it better.
Open issues were:
1)
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
jan i wrote:
any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can
start making the release.
I believe we made progress on everything that is under our control. Maybe
it's good that I repeat the
On 26 December 2014 at 00:21, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
jan i wrote:
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
You are wrong (so it's good news!), but not so
On 26/12/2014 jan i wrote:
May I suggest that once you get access (no rush here, we need to prepare
the release first), that you create 1-2 PMC credentials so that access is
not lost if one credential gets locked.
Definitely. I'm now being the contact person since we don't have
appointed a
On 26 December 2014 at 13:11, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 26/12/2014 jan i wrote:
May I suggest that once you get access (no rush here, we need to prepare
the release first), that you create 1-2 PMC credentials so that access is
not lost if one credential gets locked.
Hi.
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
Digital signing was and is a major theme for AOO. In fact AOO and Tomcat
was to be the 2 start/test applications for Apache. Infra has
-- replying to --
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
To: dev
Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
[ ... ]
My suggestion is simple, lets rerun AOO 4.1 for windows, sign it digitally,
and then release it as a patch version.
I am happy to help
to be done.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
To: dev
Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
Hi.
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong
[mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 09:35
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [OFF-LIST] RE: Digital signing release for windows.
It occurs to me that nagging the list about things is not moving the ball
forward. I suggest that is not useful and it would
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org javascript:;]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 09:35
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:;
Subject: [OFF-LIST] RE: Digital signing release for windows.
It occurs to me that nagging the list about things is not moving
On Thursday, December 25, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
-- replying to --
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org javascript:;]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
To: dev
Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
[ ... ]
My suggestion is simple, lets
, December 25, 2014 07:51
To: dev
Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
Hi.
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
[ ... ]
My suggestion is simple, lets rerun AOO 4.1
-- in reply below --
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:13
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Digital signing release for windows.
On Thursday, December 25, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote
On 25 December 2014 at 20:17, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
-- in reply below --
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:13
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Digital signing release for windows
signing release for windows.
[ ... ]
OK let me be very precise about the use of my hats. As AOO Committer I
tested how AOO could implement digital signing, As INFRA committer I helped
ASF find a solution that would work for all projects.
I cannot tell you what it has to do with AOO learning, because
jan i wrote:
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
You are wrong (so it's good news!), but not so much. I started looking
at it only 2 days ago and I didn't get far enough yet.
20 matches
Mail list logo
