Given that wix.com gets by with the name, I'm not sure it
matters...there's probably more of a concern over confusion with Wix
than it referring to masturbation in German... :-)
On 11/21/16 09:04 , Markus Geiß wrote:
Hey ... I'm a native German speaker too ...
The referenced word is pronounc
On 12/19/12 11:40 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
...Making someone a C without PPMC gives them the power to evolve the code,
but not to help make decisions about how can maintain it, or when to
release it. Something about that, I ju
On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more
than 11 million downloads.
This rele
On 11/21/11 10:11 , ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Paulswrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elderwrote:
Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates
On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
has an understanding of making or reviewing ASF releases and thats the
point of requiri
Closing this (on behalf of Carsten) as cleared for import. Thanks.
-> richard
On 10/19/11 04:39 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Please review the following contribution for IP clearance:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-service-diagnostics.html
Thank you.
Carsten
---
Cleared for import. Thanks.
-> richard
On 9/30/11 12:55 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Please review the following contribution for IP clearance:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-lightweight-httpservice.html
Thank you.
-> r
Please review the following contribution for IP clearance:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-lightweight-httpservice.html
Thank you.
-> richard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache
+1
-> richard
On 6/10/11 12:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
*** Please change your Subject: line for any [DISCUSSION] of this [VOTE]
As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be
winding down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept
OpenOffice.org as an Apache Incubator project.
On 06/08/2011 04:16 AM, Christian Lippka wrote:
Moin Moin [1],
my name is Christian Lippka and I work on the donnated code base since
1998
when I was hired by StarDivision which was then consumed by Sun and later
bought by Oracle. Oracle is also my current employer. I am here as an
individual
On 6/7/11 12:31, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/7/2011 11:11 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Just to clarify, only source code is "released" by the ASF. Yes, there may
I don't believe this is true - we have to release the source, but
any
On 6/6/11 14:26, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:17, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote:
...
How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross'
advice and focus on "what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept
this proposal?"
On 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:37, Simos Xenitellis
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall
wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi
On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva
On 6/6/11 10:33, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall wrote on 2011-06-06 16.19:
However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split the
community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the
perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact tha
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitzwrote:
[...]
Disclaimer: I
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache ht
On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hallwrote:
I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try
to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision
for where they want to go, even though they may be
On 6/5/11 7:38 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S.
Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice
On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Which is a possible consequence of any software...
How many times can we go around in circles? I agree with Ian. Accept
that there are two communities and move on either togethe
On 6/2/11 11:40, Davide Dozza wrote:
Robert,
Il 02/06/2011 17:11, robert_w...@us.ibm.com ha scritto:
Despite TDF press releases, there was never unanimous support for
LibreOffice among members of the OpenOffice.org community. We're seeing
some of them stand up now and be counted.
As OOo itali
+1
-> richard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On 11/9/10 13:20, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
One other project that already works on Android is Apache ACE
Sorry, I meant ACE when I said Aries.
And here I was thinking how cool it was that those EE guys were still
thinking about the mobile phone space... :-o
-> richard
--- Noel
---
+1
-> richard
On 11/9/10 10:13, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
About a half dozen or so of us met up at ApacheCon after the lightning talks
to talk briefly about Android @ the ASF.
The proposal is to create an android-inter...@i.a.o (we also thought about
@labs, but the general consenus seemed to be
+1
-> richard
On 10/28/10 15:42, Marcel Offermans wrote:
After the initial discussions about Celix have finished, we now have three
mentors and would like to call a vote to accept Celix into the Apache Incubator.
The proposal is included below and can also be found at:
http://wiki.apache.org
I think this is interesting. However, I'd like to point out that you
may need to take care in how you position this. I believe the OSGi specs
allow for compliant open source implementations, but it is unlikely this
implementation will ever be fully compliant. So, you'd probably be best
to just
I think it'd be cool. I have been wanting to find the time (yeah, right)
to do some Android programming...I'd love to replace their contact
manager with a better one...
-> richard
On 2/16/10 4:56 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Would there be interest in a project to develop Android-based apps?
k
On 1/29/10 10:38, Donald Whytock wrote:
I have an overview of the current Chatterbot architecture at
http://www.imtower.net/chatterbot/doku.php?id=overview
Chatterbot is different from JMS inasmuch as it's currently built to
receive messages from chat IDs and turn them into messages from
Chatte
Thanks.
-> richard
On 12/1/09 15:27, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Adam Wojtuniak contributed an implementation of the OSGi User Admin
specification to Felix. This message is a request for IP clearance
verification. The pertin
Adam Wojtuniak contributed an implementation of the OSGi User Admin
specification to Felix. This message is a request for IP clearance
verification. The pertinent information is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-user-admin.html
Thanks.
-> richard
--
+1
-> richard
On 11/4/09 15:50, Felix Meschberger wrote:
+1
Regards
Felix
Greg Stein schrieb:
Subversion is a version control system. You probably know it well as
it is the version control system employed by the Apache Software
Foundation.
The Subversion project would like to join
On 9/7/09 17:41, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
We need the software grant on file for this, did I miss it?
The grant has been recorded and I have updated the IP-Clearance page [2]
Great, I see it has been recorded. So, I guess the 72 hour IP clearance
On 9/5/09 13:36, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
I will try to keep this short.
The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The
EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of
the
rate a lot of discussion about the Aries component model
and related content.
2. Finished impls could quickly be released as non-incubator artifacts.
-> richard
thanks,
dims
On 09/04/2009 04:31 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
On 09/04/
On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
So, no, I am not saying "everything should", but in general, it would be
nice if the spec impls started there since we have a community of OSGi
users and OSGi experts who are very
o we likely wouldn't want TLPs for all of them, but
nothing stops a subproject started at Felix from going TLP if it takes
on a life of its own.
-> richard
Dan
On Thu September 3 2009 1:33:04 pm Richard S. Hall wrote:
There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general tha
We need the software grant on file for this, did I miss it?
-> richard
On 9/4/09 7:25, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
The Apache Felix project has received a contribution of an Improved OSGi
HttpService implementation
* The code is attached to the FELIX-1456 JIRA issue [1]
* The IP Clearance
pretty much free to do
whatever it wants as far as the implementation approach is concerned,
which is why we allow competing implementations within Felix.
-> richard
Ian Robinson
Richard S. Hall wrote:
There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am
aware and I cert
There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am aware
and I certainly didn't know about it in advance.
And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original
criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix".
I, personally, do not believe that all of Aries should
build an
enterprise component model on OSGi and the other non-spec related
topics.
-> richard
On 9/1/09 22:53, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 9/1/09 13:59, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Richard S.
Hall wrote:
like to see the scope arrive at ASF, and I would hope
now is the time to review the organization in this field.
+1 for Incubation, btw. I might sign up as Mentor, if I can squeeze in the
time...
-- Niclas
On Sep 2, 2009 1:52 AM, "Richard S. Hall" wrote:
As I said on d...@felix and w
On 9/1/09 13:59, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Whether Aries becomes its
own TLP, or a sub-project of Felix or some other TLP, isn't relevant
until the project is ready to exit incubation. W
On Sep 2, 2009 12:14 AM, "Guillaume Nodet" wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 18:06, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Creating another pr...
Well, the problem I see here is that we *need* to educate non-techies. This
obvisouly mean that there is a confusion. Education is just a work aroun
On 9/1/09 12:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 18:06, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Creating another project to host OSGi spec implementations seems
unnecessary. And, from my point of view, only serves to foster this
mentality that Felix projects are framework specific. I do not
s, which I do agree, could fit in the Felix scope, as could Ace do
too. I guess in all cases, things can be discussed at the time the podling
will graduate out of the incubator. The current goal is to aim to TLP as we
think the size of the project can back that, but this is not written in
stone.
On
The Apache Felix project, since its inception, has been intended to host
implementations of the OSGi specifications, which includes both the
framework as well as other standard services. A framework implementation
was just one of the goals.
This proposal seems to be saying a separate project i
+1
On 8/12/09 0:50, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
PMC and others,
Lokahi's community has collapsed long time ago and albeit Noel's
repeated efforts to create interest around the project, there is no
signs of any improvement.
I am therefor calling a vote to mothball/pause the project. Please
place your
On 8/12/09 5:44, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
PS. Why we're inventing new terms? We've been using "retire" for
years, and it's consistently mentioned in existing documentation (see
[1] and [2]).
*I* don't know, nor do I really care. Oth
On 8/11/09 14:38, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The following projects have not yet written a line in there;
Lokahi
We should probably vote to "pause" it.
XAP - Robert notes that this project is being "paused"
He means suspended, archived, recognized as dormant, etc.
If "
Hello,
I would like to request IP clearance for the Sigil sub-project
contribution to Felix from Paremus; the IP clearance form is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-sigil.html
Thanks a lot.
-> richard
---
On 7/6/09 5:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Follow up question, I assume our vote to accept the contribution is still
acceptable as well as the software grant from Paremus. So, the only
necessary action is to have Paremus submit a
Follow up question, I assume our vote to accept the contribution is
still acceptable as well as the software grant from Paremus. So, the
only necessary action is to have Paremus submit a new, Apache compatible
archive. Is that correct?
-> richard
On 7/6/09 12:52 PM, Richard S. Hall wr
Ok, thanks.
-> richard
On 7/6/09 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to perform IP clearance on the Sigil project to Felix.
The contributed archive contains some embedded JAR files, one of which
is covered by AGPL, which is a modified vers
Hello,
I am trying to perform IP clearance on the Sigil project to Felix.
The contributed archive contains some embedded JAR files, one of which
is covered by AGPL, which is a modified version of GPL. I am told by
Paremus (the contributors) that only two minor classes depend on this
JAR and i
The Apache Felix PMC request an IP check for the OSGi Shell contribution
from Peter Kriens:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-osgi-shell.html
Thank you.
-> richard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr..
+1
-> richard
On 4/19/09 11:35 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
Please vote on accepting Apache Ace for incubation at the Apache
Incubator. The full proposal is available at the end of this message
and as a wiki page at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AceProposal. We
ask the Incubator PMC to sponsor it,
Jason,
Although, we keep trying to point out that OBR != p2, you seem to keep
missing that point.
OBR is a simple repository model and API for accessing it, that's all it
is...it is not a provisioning system. As such, OBR has been "done" for a
long time. All other functionality should be hop
On 4/4/09 7:09 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 4-Apr-09, at 12:30 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
Hello Martin,
On Apr 4, 2009, at 20:39 , Martin Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Marcel Offermans <
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl> wrote:
Hello all,
I would like to formally present the
+1
-> richard
On 4/2/09 3:52 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
Hello all,
I would like to formally present the incubator proposal for Apache
Ace, a software distribution framework based on OSGi that allows you
to manage and distribute artifacts, like e.g. software components.
The full proposal c
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
It has been a week, so I guess it is time to close this IP clearance
request. It passes via lazy consensus.
-> richard
Richard S. Hall wrote:
I have finished the paperwork for a contribution from Peter Kriens to
the Apache Felix project, the resulting IP clearance form is here:
h
I have finished the paperwork for a contribution from Peter Kriens to
the Apache Felix project, the resulting IP clearance form is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-file-install.html
I'd appreciate it if someone could check it. Thanks.
-> richard
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a c
Michael Wechner wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is n
Paul Fremantle wrote:
It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
I am pretty sure that we all agree that it is not cool (1), so I wasn't
talking about this.
James Carman wrote:
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Carman wrote:
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it
I am performing the IP clearance paperwork for some code from Peter
Kriens. The IP clearance form here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
Asks me to fill in the date for:
Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
updated to ref
the actual logic inside the file? The
package statement could only be seen as a namespace facility and not
necessarily "code." I'm no lawyer, but one might try to make that
distinction.
I don't see how you could argue that it is not part of the code, when it
impacts the
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall
Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
weight around.
The IP clearance for Felix' Deployment Admin contribution is
successfully closed.
Thank you to those who looked into it.
-> richard
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Could someone check IP clearance on the following contribution:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-deployment-ad
Could someone check IP clearance on the following contribution:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-deployment-admin.html
Thanks.
-> richard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-
+1
-> richard
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Thanks to everyone who made contributions to this proposal and special
thanks to Niclas and Aaron for stepping up as mentors. The project is
documented here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BlueSky
Please vote on accepting Bluesky into the Apache Incubato
D'oh!
I will be traveling for a few days, but will look into upon my return.
-> richard
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/felix.html
:) I'm just noticing some of these status files don't actually
indicate their Graduated status.
Bill
-
+1
-> richard
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
i'd like to propose that the IPMC sponsors the entry of RAT into the incubator
- robert
--8<-
[ ] +1 Allow RAT to enter incubator, sponsored by IPMC
[ ] +0
[
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
I just cleaned some retired and graduated projects (Heraldry, mod_ftp,
wadi, Kabuki) from the Incubator status page and the reporting
schedule. I didn't want to touch more recent changes, hoping that the
people more involved would take action. The list of missing updates
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:48, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Niclas,
There is one issue that still bothers me about your proposed ways of
voting. At some point, the nominee has to be asked, and accept, to
become a committer. This would have to be after the private votes are
Hmm.
Yesterday, I tried to edit Felix' status page for the first time (adding
a committer), perhaps I missed a step. These are the steps that I followed:
1. svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk incubator
2. Edit files in site-authors/projects/
3. Run build.sh in root
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 1/22/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We look forward to sending the resolution to the board, however, it
would still be nice if we could receive some guidance as to how to
proceed with the next steps or, more precisely, what the next ste
to
proceed with the next steps or, more precisely, what the next steps are.
Thanks again.
-> richard
Richard S. Hall wrote:
The Felix community feels that we are ready for graduation, as
indicated by the following community vote to request graduation:
http://mail-archives.apache.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 1/16/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Felix community feels that we are ready for graduation, as indicated
by the following community vote to request graduation:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-felix-dev/200612.mbox/
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 1/16/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
## Resolution to create a TLP from graduating Incubator podling
Establish the Apache Felix Project
Special Order 6E, Establishing the Apache Felix Project, was
approved by Unanimou
Apparently we had inadvertently left Upayavira off the PMC list, even
though we reviewed the board resolution twice...thanks to Niclas Hedhman
for catching this. I have attached the updated board resolution to this
message.
Please consider it when casting your vote.
-> richard
Richar
The Felix community feels that we are ready for graduation, as indicated
by the following community vote to request graduation:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-felix-dev/200612.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
We would like to initiate a vote to graduate to a top level project. We
wo
+1
-> richard
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as "River".
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including Braintree and Jini. I've a
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 11 December 2006 10:57, Richard S. Hall wrote:
As a follow up, we resolved every issue raised by Daniel except the
signing portion. A new snapshot of the release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-0.8.0-incubator.html
I was able to
As a follow up, we resolved every issue raised by Daniel except the
signing portion. A new snapshot of the release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-0.8.0-incubator.html
I was able to fix one minor bug in our maven bundle plugin that was
causing LICENSE/NOTICE files
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It also seems that Felix has forked Tomcat's servlet code - which is okay:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/felix/trunk/javax.servlet/src/main/java/javax/servlet/GenericServlet.java
However, the copyright years have been altered from the original file
- re
90 matches
Mail list logo
