+1, absolutely!!!
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 March 2011 16:00, sebb wrote:
>> Some users wish to have a release of Commons Daemon via Maven.
>>
>> So have I extracted the binary, javadoc and source jars
OK +1 from me then.
Niall
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I'd just like to press along to pick up the new vers of plugins. We
> can fiddle the tm for the next go around.
>
> Gary
>
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 18:06, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> Looks OK to me. The only thing is
I'd just like to press along to pick up the new vers of plugins. We
can fiddle the tm for the next go around.
Gary
On Mar 12, 2011, at 18:06, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> Looks OK to me. The only thing is IMO we should wait on the outcome
> from Phil's trademark enquiry before releasing these. I ju
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for
change notification.
The "UsingNexus" page has been changed by KonstantinKolinko.
The comment on this change is: Revert r21, add a comment.
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/UsingNexus?action=diff&rev1=22&rev2
On 12 March 2011 23:06, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> Looks OK to me. The only thing is IMO we should wait on the outcome
> from Phil's trademark enquiry before releasing these.
OK. It's easy to change again if necessary.
> I just tried it
> out on Commons IO and saw the following footer on every pag
On 9 March 2011 16:00, sebb wrote:
> Some users wish to have a release of Commons Daemon via Maven.
>
> So have I extracted the binary, javadoc and source jars from the 1.0.5
> binary release, and created a bundle which has been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/o
Looks OK to me. The only thing is IMO we should wait on the outcome
from Phil's trademark enquiry before releasing these. I just tried it
out on Commons IO and saw the following footer on every page:
"Apache Commons, Apache Commons IO, Commons IO, Apache, the Apache
feather logo, and the Apache Co
Le 12/03/2011 04:18, sebb a écrit :
> Please may I have your votes for Commons Skin 3 and Commons Parent 19?
>
> The two have to be tested together because Commons Skin 3 is
> referenced from Commons Parent 19.
>
> If the vote for Commons Skin fails, then Commons Parent fails, but
> Commons Skin
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>
On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherw
On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
>>> need to be prepared to defend all
+1
Phil
On 3/9/11 9:00 AM, sebb wrote:
> Some users wish to have a release of Commons Daemon via Maven.
>
> So have I extracted the binary, javadoc and source jars from the 1.0.5
> binary release, and created a bundle which has been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor
+1
Niall
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM, sebb wrote:
> Some users wish to have a release of Commons Daemon via Maven.
>
> So have I extracted the binary, javadoc and source jars from the 1.0.5
> binary release, and created a bundle which has been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/co
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
>>> need to be prepared t
On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
>> need to be prepared to defend all of these "trademarks" which makes
>> no sense
On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
> need to be prepared to defend all of these "trademarks" which makes
> no sense to me personally.
I thought you just
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
19 matches
Mail list logo
