On 10/29/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This sounds like Rake (http://rake.rubyforge.org/) to me. Is Buildr
> just a customized Rake? How is Buildr any different than Rake?
Buildr is Rake underneath, we started with Rake to handle all the task and
dependency management, works ver
On 1/22/08, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
>
> You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
>
> What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
> responsibility to verify that the licen
On 1/22/08, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
>
> You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
>
> What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
> responsibility to verify that the licen
On 1/22/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
> org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
> here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache. And the
> reasoning that its too much effort to r
On 1/23/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 i
+1 (non binding)
Very exciting to see this happening at Apache.
Assaf
On 1/31/08, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The original source for this proposal can be found at
>
> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=Apache_Incubator_Proposal
>
> and a current snapshot is attached below.
+1 (non binding)
Assaf
On 2/9/08, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We've had an initial discussion, which attracted a number of messages
> of encouragement, and identified no issues or concerns. Then we
> proceeded onto a proposal, which attracted three excellent mentors.
> Now it is time
On 2/17/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But visibility of the content and process very much IS part of "the Apache
> Way."
>
> Most of the use cases mentioned so far for git, including some where
> people are using it on top of SVN with ASF projects, run counter to ASF
> principl
Up for vote, the much-anticipated Buildr 1.3 release, the first official
Apache release of the Buildr project.
The release vote passed within the PPMC with 6 +1:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-buildr-dev/200804.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
We're voting to make a release based on th
Counting IPMC members who voted here and on buildr-dev, we have three +1 and
no -1.
Time to make that release.
Assaf
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> &g
This release is primarily to solve the installation problem on Windows
due to unspecific dependency on RJB. Other changes and solved issues
in this release are listed below.
The release vote passed within the PPMC with 3 +1:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-buildr-dev/200805.mbo
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This rele
3 +1 votes here, one addition +1 PPMC on buildr-dev for a total of +4
to get this release out.
Assaf
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This release is primarily to solve the installation problem on Windows
> due to unspecific dependency on
Up for vote, the Buildr 1.3.2 release. The release vote passed within
the PPMC with +3 (+5 including non-binding votes) and no -1:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-buildr-dev/200807.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
We're voting on the source distributions available here:
http://people.
t;
> ...ant
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Up for vote, the Buildr 1.3.2 release. The release vote passed within
>> the PPMC with +3 (+5 including non-binding votes) and no -1:
>>
>>
>> htt
Passed with +3 and no -1.
Assaf
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Up for vote, the Buildr 1.3.2 release. The release vote passed within
> the PPMC with +3 (+5 including non-binding votes) and no -1:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Yes, allow extra release distribution channels like the central
>> Maven repository
>> [ ] -1 No, keep the current policy
>
> +1 All releases by ASF PMC's should be equal. If the Incubator
Up for vote, the Buildr 1.3.2 release. The release vote passed within
the PPMC with +6 (+7 including non-binding votes) and no -1:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-buildr-dev/200810.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
We're voting on the source distributions available here:
http://people.a
Passed with +3 (binding votes were cast on the PPMC mailing list)
Assaf
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Up for vote, the Buildr 1.3.2 release. The release vote passed within
> the PPMC with +6 (+7 including non-binding votes) and no -1:
>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Passed with +3 (binding votes were cast on the PPMC mailing list)
>
> Could you please provide a vote summary?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please add your reports at
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2008 Real Soon.
Buildr report added, sorry for the delay.
Assaf
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
21 matches
Mail list logo
