Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied, and signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just wanted to make sure. > > I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put > the LICENSE/NOTIC

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Just wanted to make sure. I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put the LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF. I'll check in the POM and retag as RC2, leaving the current RC2 artifacts on people.a.o in place as there are no code changes. Is everybody okay with that plan? On 9/2

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ben Speakmon wrote: That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? AFAIK these files have always been stored in META-INF. On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Speakmon wrote: I wasn't sure w

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben Speakmon wrote: > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention > it > > specifica

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ben Speakmon wrote: I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention it specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be deployed next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to make sure they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's req

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention it specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be deployed next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to make sure they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's required for this release

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Everything looks good, except for one thing, which I think needs to be fixed: the jar with the javadocs does not contain NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt. (The jar with the sources contains these files, but they are stored in the top level rather than in META-INF; don't know whether this is problemat

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project commons-email (in module apache-commons) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project commons-email has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue affect

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme (in module commons-jelly) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme has an issue affecting its community integration. This

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jsl-test (in module commons-jelly) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project commons-jelly-tags-jsl-test has an issue affecting its community integration. Th

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project commons-email (in module apache-commons) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project commons-email has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue affect

[VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

The zombie continues to shuffle across the post-apocalyptic wasteland... I'm proposing RC2 which addresses the issues found in RC1. Artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC2/ Staged site: http://people.apach