On 6/15/08, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Rahoul,
>
> not sure if I understand what you mean
>
> +) the underlying Ant code is mature
> +) commons-exec is currently used as various snapshot versions
> +) then users are aware that commons-exec is a sandbox project
> +)
Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN
> there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving
> commons-exec to commons proper?!
+1
>
> The current state of the commons-exec
> (http://commons.apache.org/san
Phil Steitz wrote:
No, just X. see the references here:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/3aybm5emimg5da42
I think R uses QR as described above. Comments or suggestions for other
default implementations are most welcome. We should aim to provide a
default implementation that is reasonably
On 15/06/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb schrieb:
>
> > On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
> > > > commons configura
sebb schrieb:
On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
> commons configuration
> with the new version successfully.
>
> The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy is the
Don't we have a standardized building page? I thought we made that
part of the commons m2 "skin"? I seem to remember us discussing this
at one point. Perhaps it hasn't been done yet.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> If you do roll another RC, it w
