From dev-return-35012-apmail-geronimo-dev-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Tue Aug 01 17:38:55 2006
Return-Path: <dev-return-35012-apmail-geronimo-dev-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 48105 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 17:38:55 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 17:38:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 94711 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 17:38:52 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 94682 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 17:38:52 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@geronimo.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@geronimo.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@geronimo.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
List-Id: <dev.geronimo.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 94671 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 17:38:52 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:38:52 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of gnodet@gmail.com designates 64.233.182.188 as permitted sender)
Received: from [64.233.182.188] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.188)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:38:51 -0700
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n29so339750nfc
        for <dev@geronimo.apache.org>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
        b=QGOBNQxmGQiKcblSc+IpDFsjdFikL6qhJkWYWViPwqwWVlc9BhtfBedQ7rhF5gGBzpAljNjyheDZrisQwJJWUv6CYim0fISu1JK961XkminNDBiwFWtXIuFcvk70qRmC7H1uIDJoyMVsF+UI4ZHSBdt6Wh6yH+cArox9OrXFDkg=
Received: by 10.49.8.15 with SMTP id l15mr1156898nfi;
        Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.38.11 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b23ecedc0608011038v4510905dq116278c1a2b4d2a9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:38:29 +0200
From: "Guillaume Nodet" <gnodet@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: XBEAN patches
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_327444_27187384.1154453909791"
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

------=_Part_327444_27187384.1154453909791
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The last hours, I have applied a few xbean patches in RTC that had 3 +1.
However it seems i missed something, and that only pmc members votes are
binding,
so these patch only have 1 binding +1.

So i' m looking for some help on how to revert these changes (or some PMC
members to review the patches).

-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

------=_Part_327444_27187384.1154453909791
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The last hours, I have applied a few xbean patches in RTC that had 3 +1.<br>However it seems i missed something, and that only pmc members votes are binding,<br>so these patch only have 1 binding +1.<br><br>So i' m looking for some help on how to revert these changes (or some PMC
<br>members to review the patches).<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Cheers,<br>Guillaume Nodet

------=_Part_327444_27187384.1154453909791--