+1 (again :-)
-Brian
On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:50 AM, James Strachan wrote:
+1 from me.
On 10/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
Apache ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved the 4.0.2 release
binary. The last t
Hi ActiveMQ Project Mentors...
If you get a chance, could you please checkout the release and cast a
vote. Thanks!
On 10/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
Apache ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved the 4.0
On 9/29/06, Mosur Ravi, Balaji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Yoko community voted on and has approved a proposal to release Yoko
Milestone 1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
to publish the milestone on the
Brian McCallister's vote just came in, so it makes it 7 "+1", with 4
binding.
Andrus
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Cayenne 2.0.1 release has been officially approved by the Incubator
PMC (voting thread can be found here - [1]). We got 6 "+1" votes
(of which 3 were b
Cayenne 2.0.1 release has been officially approved by the Incubator
PMC (voting thread can be found here - [1]). We got 6 "+1" votes (of
which 3 were binding), and no other votes:
Jean T. Anderson +1
Bill Dudney +1
Robert Burrell Donkin +1
Craig L Russell +1
Jim Jagielski +1
Andrus Adamchik +
On 10/4/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks good to me (although I've haven't been around incubator that
long), one point:
In the "Background" section theres a link to "podling websites" which
points to info about the incubator website:
i.e. http://incubator.apache.org/guid
+1
-Brian
On Sep 30, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Cayenne community has voted and approved 2.0.1 release of Cayenne.
This release marks a major milestone in Cayenne incubation as we've
fully resolved all IP issues and got rid of incompatible license
dependencies. Now we would
On 10/3/06, John Kaputin (gmail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have re-rolled the Woden 1.0.0 Milestone 6 release based on the feedback
from the Incubator PMC.
We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish
the Woden M6 release files on the Woden Download page at
And here as well: +1
On Oct 5, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
We need one more vote from an Incubator PMC member...
Or do we? Jim Jagielski voted +1 on the release already during the
vote on cayenne-dev. Does that count?
Andrus
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
We need one more vote from an Incubator PMC member...
Or do we? Jim Jagielski voted +1 on the release already during the
vote on cayenne-dev. Does that count?
Andrus
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
I just posted the new release snapshots here:
http://people.apache.org/~
Ok, thanks.
I understand the best thing to do now is to get the project going,
following the process, and as input from this discussion one of the
first items of business will be to review the committer list.
Regarding the discussion about the future, yes, I agree it is a good
idea to have some
On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
>> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was
>> nothing 'random' about this at all.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For some reason, I had the impression that there was
a phantom 'P' somewhere in the references to 'PMC'
going back and forth between Noel and Roy.
For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
members (and I use the term advisedly) have binding
v
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
>> podling and the Mentors.
>
> this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronim
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offe
Hi Noel,
> Does this still include the hardware portability layer? Any synergies with
> APR? Does it include the AWT code?
And here is my reply to Noel's message:
Hi Noel,
The code runs on x86, ARM, MIPS, and PowerPC; basically it should run on any
normal 32-bit processor (with or without MM
17 matches
Mail list logo
