A simple question regarding the SGA... at the bottom there's List of
software and other intellectual property covered by this agreement:.
I wonder if we should have Freemarker under that, or something like:
Freemarker (including the engine itself, also the Docgen and Site modules)
Because,
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- hashes and signatures good
- incubating in release name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE correct
- All source files have apache header (there are a few test .json/.txt files
you may want to add a header to)
- No unexpected binary files in release
- Can
Hi All,
Building a community requires more than just contributors who focus on code.
But also committers regarding project and product promotions (website, wiki,
social media, etc).. As as contributor of the other kind I have experience
in promoting both the project itself and its works I am
Hi!
my recollection is that the collective opinion
was to discourage the use of KEYS of robots
for signing the releases and prefer individuals
do that with their keys.
I remember a thread to that effect, but I cant
google it. Am I misremembering?
Thanks,
Roman.
Hi,
my two cents without knowing in detail the issue:
Could I make a clean build from a source release without that file?
Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
Other opinions better formed than mine are
+1 (binding)
Verified hash and signature.
Compiled on Win7 64bit, JDK 1.7.0_51
Unit test has known issue on Win7, but fine on Mac.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hash files look good
Signature look good
Source download and compiled
Looks like
Thanks Nick.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com*
Services Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Nick Burch apa...@gagravarr.org wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Pierre
Hi all,
please add my wiki account to the ContributorsGroup. My wiki account is:
PierreSmits
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com*
Services Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
can it be used outside maven? Becuase we are talking about a gradle build.
Ah, right, it's a
Am 08.06.2015 09:07, schrieb Sergio Fernández:
Hi,
my two cents without knowing in detail the issue:
Could I make a clean build from a source release without that file?
Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
It can easily be replaced with a Gradle plugin.
2015-06-08 9:07 GMT+02:00 Sergio Fernández wik...@apache.org:
Hi,
my two cents without knowing in detail the issue:
Could I make a clean build from a source release without that file?
Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Pierre Smits wrote:
please add my wiki account to the ContributorsGroup.
Karma granted, enjoy!
Nick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Well I guess the debate is because of Groovy and our use of robot keys, so
should vs must. If it's a should, I think we're ok. The reason we use
robot signing is automation. We want to avoid as many human intervention in
the release process as possible. That is to say, in the end, the whole
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Cédric Champeau
cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote:
Well I guess the debate is because of Groovy and our use of robot keys, so
should vs must. If it's a should, I think we're ok...
Would it be possible to sign the robot keys with your own keys?
The alternative
No debate, the Apache CI servers are not intended to produce release
artifacts and should not be used for this purpose. The release manager
should build the artifacts locally and sign them before uploading them to
be tested and voted on. Most projects have this process scripted out fully
and will
We are not using the Apache CI servers for that but our own CI server. IMHO
you should make a difference between building and checking. Building should
be automated as much as possible. Checking the release is a human job.
There are lots of reasons why we stopped releasing from a local computer
The release manager should use their individual key, details on signing and
keys are available at [1]
-Jake
[1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Hi!
my recollection is that the collective opinion
was to
Would it be possible to sign the robot keys with your own keys?
I think it is possible, yes.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Cédric Champeau
cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote:
We are not using the Apache CI servers for that but our own CI server. IMHO
you should make a difference between building and checking. Building should
be automated as much as possible. Checking the release is a
Hi David, you and Joe have been doing great, I'm afraid I've been
distracted with more issues at home/work than usual. I've been
concerned, and this is more serious than usual given the fact that
both the community and the oversight missed a serious issue, but given
the current feedback and the
20 matches
Mail list logo
