Le 27/04/2011 21:34, Jonathan Robie a écrit :
Would there be copyright issues?
With the proper copyright notice on the Javadoc pages there is nothing
to worry about.
Emmanuel Bourg
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Can I kindly ask this thread move off the VOTE thread please ?
Many Thanks,
Marnie
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 27/04/2011 21:34, Jonathan Robie a écrit :
Would there be copyright issues?
With the proper copyright notice on the Javadoc
On 04/27/2011 12:26 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
You are editing the right file Justin, but it looks like the live version
was updated without updating the source file accordingly (see
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1088983).
My bad, sorry! Let me ask however why you need to
You currently have to edit all the web page files in two places, with the
source files being the core content and the generation step adding all the
headers, footer, menu information to produce the final page which is
published to /site so that the webserver pulls down the changes and
publishes
On 04/27/2011 10:08 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
You currently have to edit all the web page files in two places, with the
source files being the core content and the generation step adding all the
headers, footer, menu information to produce the final page which is
published to /site so that the
On 27 April 2011 11:24, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/27/2011 10:08 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
You currently have to edit all the web page files in two places, with the
source files being the core content and the generation step adding all the
headers, footer, menu information to
On 04/27/2011 11:51 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
On 27 April 2011 11:24, Gordon Simg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/27/2011 10:08 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Since we don't actually have anything too complicated and we are just
storing the pages as html source anyway rather than some base format
On 04/27/2011 07:04 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
iframes are even better for this case - what about using them?
iframes would probably hurt our Google ranking.
See this:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=72746#4;
IFrames are sometimes used to display content on web
Le 27/04/2011 01:26, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
I have promoted the maven artifacts to the release repository, they are now
available at https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases and
should get mirrored to the central repo imminently.
Thank you Robbie. The artifacts are now in
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 27/04/2011 01:26, Robbie Gemmell a écrit :
I have promoted the maven artifacts to the release repository, they are
now
available at https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
and
should get
Le 27/04/2011 17:17, Rajith Attapattu a écrit :
Since we don't support any API other than the JMS API, we don't really
have any java doc to publish.
That doesn't hurt to publish the javadoc even if you only support the
JMS API. It's a very useful documentation to people hacking around the
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 27/04/2011 17:17, Rajith Attapattu a écrit :
Since we don't support any API other than the JMS API, we don't really
have any java doc to publish.
That doesn't hurt to publish the javadoc even if you only support the
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 27/04/2011 18:01, Rajith Attapattu a écrit :
Well we don't have a clear API or proper documentation to publish
something meaningful (at least on the client side).
IMO it will only confuse people and encourage them to
On 04/27/2011 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 27/04/2011 17:17, Rajith Attapattu a écrit :
Since we don't support any API other than the JMS API, we don't really
have any java doc to publish.
That doesn't hurt to publish the javadoc even if you only support the
JMS API. It's a very useful
for anyone to change
their vote, or to vote at all, and then close it.
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:44 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread
[mailto:marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:44 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is
does anyone wish to change their vote in the light of the
discussions over the 7 days it has been
to change
their vote, or to vote at all, and then close it.
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:44 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could
at all, and then close it.
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:44 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is
does
]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:44 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is
does anyone wish to change their vote in the light of the
discussions over the 7 days it has been open ?
We should decide today
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is does anyone wish
to change their vote in the light of the discussions over the 7 days it has
been open ?
We should decide today if we're proceeding or not, as its all getting a
little confusing ;-)
If people are uncomfortable with
: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is
does anyone wish to change their vote in the light of the
discussions over the 7 days it has been open ?
We should decide today if we're proceeding or not, as its all
getting a little confusing
+1
-Original Message-
From: Justin Ross [mailto:jr...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:40 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release 0.10
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more information, including
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is
does anyone wish to change their vote in the light of the
discussions over the 7 days it has been open ?
We should decide today if we're proceeding or not, as its all
getting
I staged the 0.10 maven artifacts last night. Should anyone else wish to
test them before they get promoted or dropped, they are now available here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-109/
Robbie
On 19 April 2011 13:09, Robbie Gemmell robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
All,
I've had a look at the details and I'd like to propose the release go ahead
now, rather than be delayed any further.
The reasoning is that the Java items highlighted are not strictly
regressions (existing largely in Qpid 0.8) and more importantly the fixes
for them, and associated issues,
That seems reasonable to me, Marnie.
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:37 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10
All,
I've had a look at the details and I'd like
On 04/20/2011 10:36 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
I've had a look at the details and I'd like to propose the release go ahead
now, rather than be delayed any further.
The reasoning is that the Java items highlighted are not strictly
regressions (existing largely in Qpid 0.8) and more importantly
Marnie, that sounds quite reasonable to me.
Justin
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Marnie McCormack wrote:
All,
I've had a look at the details and I'd like to propose the release go ahead
now, rather than be delayed any further.
The reasoning is that the Java items highlighted are not strictly
While the root cause for both these items have been present in 0.8
(and perhaps before for QPID-3216) these issues are *more likely* to
happen in the current release than in 0.8
In that sense they are regressions, and certainly from a users pov of they are.
I think recent changes in the client
On 04/20/2011 02:38 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
While the root cause for both these items have been present in 0.8
(and perhaps before for QPID-3216) these issues are *more likely* to
happen in the current release than in 0.8
In that sense they are regressions, and certainly from a users pov of
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/20/2011 02:38 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
While the root cause for both these items have been present in 0.8
(and perhaps before for QPID-3216) these issues are *more likely* to
happen in the current release than in 0.8
+1
Robbie
On 14 April 2011 15:39, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more information, including release notes, at the release
page[1].
The proposed final distribution of Qpid 0.10 is available from
Moving this off the 0.10 vote thread as I actually planned to last time :)
The process for releasing these is detailed at
http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html as previously
mentioned, and involves them being published to the ASF's Nexus instance at
We do have two serious regressions in QPID-3214 QPID-3216
But I don't think we should stop the release as I don't believe we can
fix them quickly and safely enough to make this release viable.
We are trying very hard to release often and I don't want to jeopardize that.
Since we do have another
+1
-K
- Original Message -
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more information, including release notes, at the
release page[1].
The proposed final distribution of Qpid 0.10 is available from the
link
below. It's from revision
+1
It works for me.
-Chuck
- Original Message -
From: Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:39:40 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Release 0.10
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more
+1
Cliff
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Justin Ross jr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more information, including release notes, at the release
page[1].
The proposed final distribution of Qpid 0.10 is available
Hi.
One thing I'm not clear on. Since the genpom stuff has been fixed (See
QPID-1916 - thx, Robbie and Emmanuel) are we going to disseminate
Maven artifacts as part of 0.10 now? That would definitely be nice to
have. I believe we can upload to
Le 15/04/2011 13:50, Andrew Kennedy a écrit :
One thing I'm not clear on. Since the genpom stuff has been fixed (See
QPID-1916 - thx, Robbie and Emmanuel) are we going to disseminate
Maven artifacts as part of 0.10 now? That would definitely be nice to
have. I believe we can upload to
The instructions cover an upload-only use of Ivy, which is something I have
been investigating and plan to put in place so we can publish the artifacts
to Nexus.
Robbie
On 15 April 2011 13:57, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 15/04/2011 13:50, Andrew Kennedy a écrit :
One thing
+1
On 04/14/2011 10:39 AM, Justin Ross wrote:
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been resolved.
There's more information, including release notes, at the release page[1].
The proposed final distribution of Qpid 0.10 is available from the link below.
It's from
On 04/14/2011 03:39 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more information, including release notes, at the
release page[1].
The proposed final distribution of Qpid 0.10 is available from the link
below. It's from revision
Hello, everyone. The blocker issue raised earlier this week has been
resolved. There's more information, including release notes, at the
release page[1].
The proposed final distribution of Qpid 0.10 is available from the link
below. It's from revision 1091571 of the 0.10 branch.
43 matches
Mail list logo
