+1 (non-binding)
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37, Eric Evans wrote:
>>> It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
>>> the rear-view, and the delta[1] is becoming quite large. I
>>> propose we vote to r
out of curiosity are you shooting for incrementing these counters 10k
times a second for sustained periods of time?
cheers,
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:28, Robin Bowes wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I'm contacting you in your capac
+1 (non-binding)
however, jira has #749 and #1156 as resolved in this release however
they are not in the changes.txt for this release as it is being voted
on
cheers,
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 13:38, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> +1
>
&g
are not particularly motivated to
support maven better so they haven't, that is their prerogative. They
have done more then some projects in saying they are not adverse to
having it done if someone else does it..:)
cheers,
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 9,
>> yes, and my point is that if there is any question in your guys minds
>> on if it is allowed or not that is an issue for apache legal (via
>> jira) for a definitive answer
>>
>>
>
> so.. if you have a question for them.. go ping them.. no need anyone else to
> paraphrase it.. just go ahead and a
> This is not an issue of whether or not we can distribute these jars, (we
> can). It boils down to the _requirements_ of distributing them, i.e. the
> inclusion of license text and attribution notices as required.
>
> So long as we are properly documenting license and attribution, we can
> check a
> The binary release artifacts created by the `release' target in
> build.xml, (they look something like
> apache-cassandra-$VERSION-bin.tar.gz on the mirrors).
actually I was asking about the problematic artifacts inside that
distribution that were in question as to whether you could
redistribute
>> +1 to have your official 'distribution' contain everything needed to
>> run
>
> It remains to be seen whether this can legally be done.
sorry, I didn't see which artifacts would be problematic for this,
could you call them out?
apache legal has been very helpful on this in the past for maven,
r official 'distribution' contain everything needed to run
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:10, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 23:32 -0500, Paul Querna wrote:
>> > Lack of java-devness showing: Can't the -bin
