DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26443] - zip update=false does not overwrite zip file when file deleted

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26443] New: - zip update=false does not overwrite zip file when file deleted

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

On Jan 26, 2004, at 11:46 AM, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Do you want to include the Apache 2.0 license in ant 1.6.1 Yes [ ] No [X] There is no hurry to put this license in. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For addition

[VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

For time reasons, I will not be able to include the apache 2.0 license in the 1.6.1 beta on Thursday evening, but it can be in the final version. (A vote is normally opened 7 days according to the bylaws). Do you want to include the Apache 2.0 license in ant 1.6.1 * The Board has approved the new

Re: New Apache License

Steve Loughran wrote: Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ? I have yet to probe. I know the lawyers were very, very, very unhappy at the original draft as its patent scope was too broad: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=49 Hi Steve, You are referring

Re: New Apache License

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the old license. -steve Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ? I have yet to probe. I know the lawyers were very, very,

Re: New Apache License

Steve Loughran wrote: Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the old license. -steve Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ? I have yet to probe. I know the law

Re: text support for macrodef

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about: ... +1 Stefan Ok, done. Should this be part of ant 1.6.1 ? Peter +1. On first I thought an attribute would be easier, because shorter. But you can much more things here and the use is the same as for nested elements and attributes. Jan -

Re: New Apache License

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Steve Loughran wrote: Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the old license. -steve Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ? I have

RE: text support for macrodef

> > How about: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > +1 > > Stefan +1. On first I thought an attribute would be easier, because shorter. But you can much more things here and the use is the same as for nested elements and attributes. Jan

Re: New Apache License

I'd argue w/ switching on march 1. That way anyone who doesnt agree with the new license has some weeks to get the old version with the old license. -steve Do you foresee some opposition to the new license ? I rather get this type of chores done sooner rather than later. Antoine --

Re: New Apache License

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi, from the short summary of the last ASF board meeting: * The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/. The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be

Re: New Apache License

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PLus we include the full text in a file in the distribution. And retain the years in the copyright notice. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For

Re: New Apache License

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:17 pm, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: > so do we want to see this : > > /* > *Copyright 2004 Apache Software Foundation > *Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); > * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. > * You may obta

Re: New Apache License

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: what about starting the switch with ant 1.6.1 ? I wouldn't have any problem with this. Do we need to change the license comment in all the source files ? Yes, sooner or later. Not sure whethe

Re: New Apache License

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what about starting the switch with ant 1.6.1 ? I wouldn't have any problem with this. > Do we need to change the license comment in all the source files ? Yes, sooner or later. Not sure whether it has to be done before we

LOSE WEIGHT THE EASY WAY!!!!!!! poker

Title: fatpatch1 LOSE WEIGHT THE EASIER WAY "ITS NOT A DIET.ITS A PATCH" Herbal-RX Diet Patch is a cutting-edge, advanced appetite suppressant, metabolism booster, and energy enhancer...all in one! With Herbal-RX Diet Patch, there are no more starvation diets and no difficult and dangerous

Re: New Apache License

Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi, from the short summary of the last ASF board meeting: * The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/. The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be switched to the new lice

New Apache License

Hi, from the short summary of the last ASF board meeting: > * The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that >license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/. > >The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be switched to >the new license by M