> I really have no idea what you mean wrt "their ethics". Can you elaborate?
Wrapping binaries and including bloatware, ads posing as large Download buttons
and leading to shady sites, parent company more interested in squeezing out
profit through sketchy means, etc. (Although, it sounds like
On 13 August 2015 at 18:09, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> So basically I think we should push both the artifacts and distros to
> multiple places. To me the real question is that of process. How do we
> get them to each place? Given that we have had trouble with SF for distro
> uploads and Nexus for
So basically I think we should push both the artifacts and distros to
multiple places. To me the real question is that of process. How do we
get them to each place? Given that we have had trouble with SF for distro
uploads and Nexus for artifact uploads, I'd prefer to not do those uploads
as par
TBH SourceForge is generally the least of my worries when doing a release
nowadays. Yes I have had trouble with it the last 2 releases due to their
outage, but honestly the JBoss Nexus has been a bigger pain-point more
often. And blogging is getting there too.
Unless I am mistaken, distribution
On 13 August 2015 at 15:50, Brett Meyer wrote:
> Sorry, late to this...
>
> My vote would be to get rid of SourceForge entirely. I can't stand their
> ethics, services, or downtime...
>
> We use download.jboss.org for Artificer and haven't had any issues. Fully
> supports SCP or SFTP -- I alre
Sorry, late to this...
My vote would be to get rid of SourceForge entirely. I can't stand their
ethics, services, or downtime...
We use download.jboss.org for Artificer and haven't had any issues. Fully
supports SCP or SFTP -- I already have it scripted and would be more than happy
to help p
Could we still consider an alternative to SourceForge for the binary
distribution? With all the crap they've been pulling, lately, in addition to
the outages, I'd love to avoid it entirely...
- Original Message -
> From: "Hardy Ferentschik"
> To: "Gail Badner"
> Cc: "hibernate-dev"
>
For a lot of your questions, I'd highly suggest reading [1] and [2]. They
are mostly the same content (asciidoc versus docbook).
[1] -
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/5.0/topical/html/bootstrap/NativeBootstrapping.html
[2] -
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/5.0/userGuide/en-US/html_single/
On 13 August 2015 at 08:33, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-08-12 17:46 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero :
>> That's an interesting proposal, as index sharing inherently implies
>> that fields on different types shall not have conflicting mapping
>> (i.e. don't reuse the same field name for a differ
Thanks for the feedback, Andrej!
What kind of sharing is this, the one between types of one inheritance
hierarchy we discussed or between unrelated types? In case of the
latter, what's the reason that you need this? Would be interested to
learn about the use case.
--Gunnar
2015-08-12 23:17 GMT+
Hi,
2015-08-12 17:46 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> That's an interesting proposal, as index sharing inherently implies
> that fields on different types shall not have conflicting mapping
> (i.e. don't reuse the same field name for a different type).
>
> By default we don't share indexes across unr
11 matches
Mail list logo
