RE: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

nks, Adi Sakala > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Justin Erenkrantz > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:10 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On 11/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: I was taking a quick look at CXF's site and I noticed the reference to a JSR spec. Has CXF passed the TCK for

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/people.apache.org/%7Eblin/

Re: [policy] where incubation notices should live (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release)

Leo Simons wrote: > > > This is the RELEASE NOTES for God's sake! Do you really > > think that a document that details the release notes > > for a codebase should not specify that the codebase > > is in Incubation. > > For the record, I'm personally not too fussed. Those disclaimers end > up in

[policy] where incubation notices should live (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release)

On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote: On 01/12/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: > What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should probably include the in

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

Perfect. With this an Dan Kulp's changes let's reroll. On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Peter Jones wrote: Hi there, On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:17:36AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: [...] There is NOTHING in the release_notes file that indicates that CXF is in incubation. I just committed an upd

Incubation disclaimers (Was: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release)

Hi, On 12/1/06, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Friday 01 December 2006 10:10, Martin Ritchie wrote: > So are we saying that having a DISCLAIMER file and the disclaimer in > the README at the top level is not "clear" enough or does "all > documentation" need to have the disclaimer as i

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

Hi there, On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:17:36AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > [...] > > There is NOTHING in the release_notes file that > indicates that CXF is in incubation. I just committed an update for the version of the release_notes.txt that is in trunk. I just added under incubation, or (i

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote: On 01/12/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: > > What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should probably > include the incubator disclaimer. > Yes. There is noth

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On Friday 01 December 2006 10:10, Martin Ritchie wrote: > On 01/12/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: > > > What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should probably > > > include the incubator disclaimer. > > > > Yes. T

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On 01/12/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: > > What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should probably > include the incubator disclaimer. > Yes. There is nothing in that file to indicate incubation. It's an importan

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should probably include the incubator disclaimer. Yes. There is nothing in that file to indicate incubation. It's an important doc, so the fact of incubation should be clear. ---

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: Binaries and Source Distribution

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jean T. Anderson wrote: > robert burrell donkin wrote: >>On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Jim Jagielski wrote: > ... The release_notes.txt in the docs folder of the release build refer to Apache CXF and no

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >> > ... >> > The release_notes.txt in the docs folder >> > of the release build refer to Apache CXF and not Apache >> > Incub

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

Jean T. Anderson wrote: > robert burrell donkin wrote: >>On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Jim Jagielski wrote: > ... The release_notes.txt in the docs folder of the release build refer to Apache CXF and not Apache Incubator CXF. This should be fixed :) >>> >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >> > ... >> > The release_notes.txt in the docs folder >> > of the release build refer to Apache CXF and not Apache >> > Incubator CXF. This should be fixed :) >> >> actually, the bran

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On 11/30/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: > >> The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the >> previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: >> >> Binaries and Source

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: > >> The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the >> previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: >> >> Binaries and Source Distributions: >> http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubato

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

Is this a show stopper and a -1? Can we fix this as part of our next milestone? On 11/30/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: > The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the > previous licensing issues. Builds

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/people.apache.org/%7Eblin/

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

+1 The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/ Maven Repository

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

+1 Dan Diephouse wrote: The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/

[VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release

The Apache CXF team has cut another candidate release which fixes the previous licensing issues. Builds have been published here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/ Maven Repository: http: