Am 01/01/2015 10:19 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Open issues were:
1) Decide on making 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2, whatever. This is solved, we are
going
to make a new release and call it 4.1.2.
2) Fix access to certificate fo
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> Open issues were:
>>> 1) Decide on making 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2, whatever. This is solved, we are
>>> going
>>> to make a new release and call it 4.1.2.
>
On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Open issues were:
1) Decide on making 4.1.1.1, 4.1.2, whatever. This is solved, we are going
to make a new release and call it 4.1.2.
2) Fix access to certificate for signing. Still waiting for Infra, but I
can't bl
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> jan i wrote:
>
>> any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can
>> start making the release.
>>
>
> I believe we made progress on everything that is under our control. Maybe
> it's good that I repeat the informati
jan i wrote:
any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can
start making the release.
I believe we made progress on everything that is under our control.
Maybe it's good that I repeat the information here so that we can track
it better.
Open issues were:
1) Decide
any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can
start making the release.
rgds
jan i
On Friday, December 26, 2014, jan i wrote:
>
>
> On 26 December 2014 at 13:11, Andrea Pescetti > wrote:
>
>> On 26/12/2014 jan i wrote:
>>
>>> May I suggest that once you get access (
On 26 December 2014 at 13:11, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 jan i wrote:
>
>> May I suggest that once you get access (no rush here, we need to prepare
>> the release first), that you create 1-2 PMC credentials so that access is
>> not lost if one credential gets locked.
>>
>
> Definitely
On 26/12/2014 jan i wrote:
May I suggest that once you get access (no rush here, we need to prepare
the release first), that you create 1-2 PMC credentials so that access is
not lost if one credential gets locked.
Definitely. I'm now being the contact person since we don't have
appointed a rel
On 26 December 2014 at 00:21, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> jan i wrote:
>
>> It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
>> anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
>> wrong).
>>
>
> You are wrong (so it's good news!), but not so much. I sta
jan i wrote:
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
You are wrong (so it's good news!), but not so much. I started looking
at it only 2 days ago and I didn't get far enough yet. I'
: Re: Digital signing release for windows.
[ ... ]
OK let me be very precise about the use of my "hats". As AOO Committer I
tested how AOO could implement digital signing, As INFRA committer I helped
ASF find a solution that would work for all projects.
I cannot tell you what it has
On 25 December 2014 at 20:17, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
>
>
> -- in reply below --
> From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:13
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Digital signing release for win
-- in reply below --
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:13
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Digital signing release for windows.
On Thursday, December 25, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
[ ... ]
>
>The of
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
> To: dev
> Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
>
> Hi.
>
> It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
> anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
> wrong).
>
On Thursday, December 25, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
>
>
> -- replying to --
> From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org ]
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
> To: dev
> Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> My suggestion is simpl
>
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org ]
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 09:35
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [OFF-LIST] RE: Digital signing release for windows.
>
> It occurs to me th
nis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 09:35
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [OFF-LIST] RE: Digital signing release for windows.
It occurs to me that nagging the list about things is not moving the ball
forward. I suggest that is not useful
to be done.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
To: dev
Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
Hi.
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am
-- replying to --
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 07:51
To: dev
Subject: Digital signing release for windows.
[ ... ]
My suggestion is simple, lets rerun AOO 4.1 for windows, sign it digitally,
and then release it as a patch version.
I am happy to help
Hi.
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
Digital signing was and is a major theme for AOO. In fact AOO and Tomcat
was to be the 2 start/test applications for Apache. Infra has inves
20 matches
Mail list logo
