robert burrell donkin wrote:
Agreed. After a little more discussion, we should rewrite this.
+1
anyone feel like jumping volunteering to come up with a draft?
Working on this now...
Phil
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 12:27 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Interpreted literally, 17 goes against standard practice in jakarta (or
>
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Interpreted literally, 17 goes against standard practice in jakarta (or
apache, to my knowledge, other than in the incubator). I would
recommend that new
On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
> > Interpreted literally, 17 goes against standard practice in jakarta (or
> > apache, to my knowledge, other than in the incubator). I would
> > recommend that new packag
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Interpreted literally, 17 goes against standard practice in jakarta (or
> apache, to my knowledge, other than in the incubator). I would
> recommend that new packages require existing committers to support them.
> I would at least recom
