On 3/20/2016 10:02 AM, Carl Marcum wrote:
On 03/16/2016 08:23 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Are any of you planning to attend the North America ApacheCon? I have
not yet decided whether to go.
Patricia
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Thanks for the "None" Target, Marcus.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 15:38
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: q...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
>
> Am 03/2
+1 also.
The issue is whether it is ASF distributed software, for which ASF
trademarks can appropriately be used. I think it is and should continue
to be ASF distributed software.
Releasing the source, on an ASF server, with a PMC release vote, is
required for ASF distributed software. Derived a
Candaises Williams wrote:
> Username: Candaises C. Williams
> Real Name: Candaises C. WIlliams
>
Candaises;
Have you created that account on the cwiki yet? The procedure for the
cwiki is that you create the account by filling out the form at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/signup.action. Once
I want to clarify this.
I think the problem might be that "Resolved - Fixed" is being used incorrectly.
As far as I know, there are many cases where this resolution is used where one
of "Resolved - Not an Issue" (though not too often), "Resolved -
Irreproducible", "Resolved - Won't Fix", or "Re
Am 03/20/2016 08:18 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 03/20/2016 09:48 AM, Carl Marcum wrote:
On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[BCC to the PMC]
> From the Chair,
If this is considered an Apache release and identified as
provided by the Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache
r
Am 03/20/2016 09:08 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
We seem to have a number of issues in BZ that are now listed
as Resolved/Fixed but don't seem to pertain to an actual
upcoming release.
Examples:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126652
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126828
Can we
+1
I think exploring that source being at ASF and the artifact be elsewhere is a
good idea.
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 09:49
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Releasing the Apache OpenOffice API plugin
On 03/20/2016 03:18 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On 03/20/2016 09:48 AM, Carl Marcum wrote:
On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[BCC to the PMC]
>From the Chair,
If this is considered an Apache release and identified as
provided by the Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache
releas
Kay Schenk wrote:
We seem to have a number of issues in BZ that are now listed
as Resolved/Fixed but don't seem to pertain to an actual
upcoming release.
Everything that was marked RESOLVED FIXED will be in 4.2.0. So 4.2.0 is
a perfectly valid value for these cases.
Just to be clear: 4.1.2 w
To our BZ admins.
We seem to have a number of issues in BZ that are now listed
as Resolved/Fixed but don't seem to pertain to an actual
upcoming release.
Examples:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126652
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126828
Can we add something like "N/A" or
On 03/20/2016 09:48 AM, Carl Marcum wrote:
>
>
> On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> [BCC to the PMC]
>>
>> >From the Chair,
>>
>> If this is considered an Apache release and identified as
>> provided by the Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache
>> release requirements must
On 03/16/2016 08:23 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Are any of you planning to attend the North America ApacheCon? I have
not yet decided whether to go.
Patricia
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For
On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[BCC to the PMC]
>From the Chair,
If this is considered an Apache release and identified as provided by the
Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache release requirements must be
satisfied.
I know of no records on the AOO project obtaining
[BCC to the PMC]
>From the Chair,
If this is considered an Apache release and identified as provided by the
Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache release requirements must be
satisfied.
I know of no records on the AOO project obtaining an exception for this case
from the Foundation. If
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 06:41
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] ApacheCon
>
> On 17/03/2016 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > I thought about it, since the travel part is easy.
> > I decided to
On 17/03/2016 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
I thought about it, since the travel part is easy.
I decided to avoid the expense of the conference and accomodations and stay
home though.
ApacheCon would be a quite appropriate usage of our travel funds. If the
reason for you not to attend ApacheCon i
Not only it is possible to compel, it is imperative for a viable project.
As Stalin once said, "When there's a person, there's a problem." :)
Lack of management hierarchy just can't work in the long run.
The history of OpenOffice also shows its peak was when an organization with
a clear command str
Am 03/20/2016 11:29 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 20/03/2016 Marcus wrote:
Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts for availability
at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as official project
releases requiring a vote? ...
On 03/15/16 13:46, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
I have been noticing damjan's great advance in merging the gbuild stuff.
It would be rather interesting to compare the buildworld timing.
Is it faster to build with gbuild? Perhaps the buildbot may give us a
hint but we may not know exactly a
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> When I was working I gave up some of my freedom to do what I wanted in
> exchange for being paid to do what other people told me.
>
> We all do...
> I retired when I had accumulated enough investments that the financial
> improvement f
On 20/03/2016 Marcus wrote:
Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts for availability
at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as official project
releases requiring a vote? ...
@all:
Is there anything that would speak against
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 10:04:43 +0100
Marcus wrote:
> Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
> > Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts for availability
> > at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as official project
> > releases requiring a vote?
> >
> > If so, what
Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts for availability
at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as official project
releases requiring a vote?
If so, what would the verification procedure look like?
We had the first Japanes
24 matches
Mail list logo
