No problem sweet cheeks
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Awesome, thanks Tom !
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 03/04/2016 10:42 AM, Tom Barber wrote:
>
>> +1 Binding
>>
>> Checked and built. Headers look good. License, Notice and Disclaimer look
>> good.
>>
>> Tom
>>
Awesome, thanks Tom !
Regards
JB
On 03/04/2016 10:42 AM, Tom Barber wrote:
+1 Binding
Checked and built. Headers look good. License, Notice and Disclaimer look
good.
Tom
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
Gently reminder: we need at lest one more IPMC vote to acce
+1 Binding
Checked and built. Headers look good. License, Notice and Disclaimer look
good.
Tom
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Gently reminder: we need at lest one more IPMC vote to accept the release.
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 02/15/2016 10:02 AM, Jean-B
Gently reminder: we need at lest one more IPMC vote to accept the release.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 02/15/2016 10:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi all,
I submit Apache Unomi 1.0.0-incubating release to your vote (take 4, new
tentative fixing NOTICE file).
A vote was held on developer maili
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 02/15/2016 10:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi all,
I submit Apache Unomi 1.0.0-incubating release to your vote (take 4, new
tentative fixing NOTICE file).
A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed with +1s.
Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apac
Hi,
> Normally we should only have dual licensed GPL/CDDL unless I have missed
> something.
Note that most of the GPL/CDDL dual licensed files have this:
If you wish your version of this file to be governed by only the CDDL or
only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by adding "[Contri
> On 16 févr. 2016, at 07:10, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> I got this error when compiling - looks like a path may be wrong:
> [INFO] Apache Unomi :: Distribution Package ... FAILURE [ 0.568
> s]
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.7:run (
Hi Justin,
Thank you so much for this detailed testing and report.
Normally we should only have dual licensed GPL/CDDL unless I have missed
something. We are working on a plugin legal-maven-plugin that actually does
recursively go down into embedded JARs to make sure we collect everything but
HI,
> thanks for this awesome review !
No problem, binaries with than many jars are hard to get right. Hopefully none
of the jars with jars inside than have more jars inside them :-)
I did’t take a huge amount of care so made of made a mistake or two - just
trying to find the obvious issues. I
Hi Justin,
thanks for this awesome review !
We gonna improve with your comments.
Thanks again,
Regards
JB
On 02/16/2016 07:10 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- incubating in file name
- hashes and signatures good
- DISCLAIMER exits
- Source LICENSE good (although the shor
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- incubating in file name
- hashes and signatures good
- DISCLAIMER exits
- Source LICENSE good (although the short form of the license is prefered) [1]
- Source NOICE has a little bit of extra info in it - there's no need to
mention MIT software [1]
- No unexpected bin
11 matches
Mail list logo
