On 11/26/13 10:42 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 26 November 2013 22:06, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> I at least understand the proposal but I don't support it because the
>>> multi language sets are not use friendly at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> We wouldn't link to it
On 26 November 2013 22:06, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 25/11/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I at least understand the proposal but I don't support it because the
>> multi language sets are not use friendly at the moment.
>>
>
> We wouldn't link to it from the main download pages anyway.
>
> And
On 25/11/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I at least understand the proposal but I don't support it because the
multi language sets are not use friendly at the moment.
We wouldn't link to it from the main download pages anyway.
And of course the question is for what we do need the binaries on this
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> jan i wrote:
>
>> but I do think you put our users lower than they are, there are also many
>> users who install a en-US package and then additional languages, simply
>> because we live in an international world.
>>
>
> Those "many" are sti
On 11/25/13 10:02 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> jan i wrote:
>> but I do think you put our users lower than they are, there are also many
>> users who install a en-US package and then additional languages, simply
>> because we live in an international world.
>
> Those "many" are still a minority. J
jan i wrote:
but I do think you put our users lower than they are, there are also many
users who install a en-US package and then additional languages, simply
because we live in an international world.
Those "many" are still a minority. Juergen is right in saying that the
download and installa
On 11/25/13 9:19 AM, jan i wrote:
> On 25 November 2013 08:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/13 5:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> Andrew Rist wrote:
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest
>> solution,
> and if we c
On 25 November 2013 08:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/23/13 5:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > Andrew Rist wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> >>> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest
> solution,
> >>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra won
On 25 November 2013 01:43, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andrea Pescetti
> wrote:
> > Andrew Rist wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest
> solution,
> >>> and if we can decide that, the
On 11/23/13 5:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Andrew Rist wrote:
>> On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
>>> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest solution,
>>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
>
> Actually, it was Infra who pushed for ha
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Andrew Rist wrote:
>>
>> On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
>>>
>>> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest solution,
>>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
>
>
> Actually, it was I
On 23 November 2013 17:18, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
>>
>>> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest solution,
>>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
>>>
>>
> Actually, it was Infra
Andrew Rist wrote:
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest solution,
and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem.
Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a
secondary mirror network, a
Am 11/22/2013 07:37 PM, schrieb Andrew Rist:
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
On 22 November 2013 10:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Hi.
We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
It
On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote:
On 22 November 2013 10:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
Hi.
We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
It would be wise of us to have this solved before
On 22 November 2013 10:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
> >
> > It would be wise of us to have this solved before we release 4.1,
On 11/22/13 9:52 AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
>
> It would be wise of us to have this solved before we release 4.1, in order
> not to have a potential delay.
anybody is free to w
Hi.
We have been discussion to reduce our footprint on the mirrors, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6654
It would be wise of us to have this solved before we release 4.1, in order
not to have a potential delay.
The base discussion (please correct me if I am wrong) is which of 2
18 matches
Mail list logo
