> From: Ben Walding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 9:03 AM
>
> I'm still not convinced that "binaries" is better than "binary" as a
> type directory.
>
> See my original comments that must have lost in the ether (section 2) -
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL
I'm still not convinced that "binaries" is better than "binary" as a
type directory.
See my original comments that must have lost in the ether (section 2) -
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1124258
Cheers,
Ben
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
All,
As a way to force me to review
Not quite. The log4j-1.2.8.zip binary should be
log4j-1.2.8-bin.zip according to
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts
I would expect the log4j 1.2.8 release (with debug versions of
jars and binaries) to look something like:
apache/ (organisation)
Look reasonable to me.
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
All,
As a way to force me to review the specification and attempt to implement
I've started a knock up repository at:
http://www.apache.org/~ajack/testrepo
[If we think this is a good idea we can ask infrastructure@ for a location
we can all write to
