On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SPF is running - it will drop it, and I've seen it happen.
Seems to be working again - or at least did yesterday.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:09:11 +0100, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> If we allow [EMAIL PROTECTED] to post to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> then suddenly a lot of viruses will get through. How many viruses
> >> have you rece
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we allow [EMAIL PROTECTED] to post to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> then suddenly a lot of viruses will get through. How many viruses
>> have you received that have been "sent" from yourself?
>
> Doesn't the mailer drop it because it was
> They should (Maven should use CVS Ant and CVS Jelly) - at some point.
Sure, but one step at a time.
> > They've gotten through in the past. We should probably change the
> > from address to general@gump.apache.org and make sure it gets
> > moderated through, I guess.
>
> IMHO we should use rea
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I didn't quite understand why something would be needed at build
>> > time, but not runtime?
>>
>> Ant or JavaCC, for example.
>
> Right, build != compile - sorry I wasn't thinking straight. These
> don't often affect Maven if the
> > I didn't quite understand why something would be needed at build
> > time, but not runtime?
>
> Ant or JavaCC, for example.
Right, build != compile - sorry I wasn't thinking straight. These
don't often affect Maven if the plugin is assumed to be installed.
However, doesn't it really make mor
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't quite understand why something would be needed at build
> time, but not runtime?
Ant or JavaCC, for example.
>> If that helps. I'm not sure. We still have a few cases of
>> jelly-tags builds that passed in the Ant incarnat
I didn't quite understand why something would be needed at build time,
but not runtime?
> If that helps. I'm not sure. We still have a few cases of jelly-tags
> builds that passed in the Ant incarnation but fail now that we use
> Maven.
which ones? There haven't been any mails, and
http://bru
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sorry, the docs aren't very clear on runtime.
Probably so.
means "I need foo at runtime, not only at build time". runtime
defaults to false.
means I also need to depend on all dependencies of foo, those that foo
has marked as r
sorry, the docs aren't very clear on runtime.
so none of the deps are transitive, unless they are given at run time?
I guess I'm just trying to figure the reason to pass it around before
adding more to the jelly metadata.
I guess another alternative is to switch latka to its maven build?
Anyway
Hi all,
when Jelly switched to a Maven generated descriptor, it lost all the
runtime="true" attributes on the dependencies. As a result Latka,
which uses Jelly during its tests, no longer picks up
commons-collections (and probably others).
Before I start adding the Jelly runtime dependencies lef
11 matches
Mail list logo
