* Anthony Green <green@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-03-19 13:02]: > Andrew Overholt wrote: > > xmlrpc 3.0 looks > >different enough from 2.0.1 and we have things that need 2.0.1 (some > >plexus stuff), so I think having a separate package is acceptable. Can > >anyone see a problem with this? > > FWIW, this makes sense to me. Cool. I've submitted for review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233004 If someone could review that, I'd really appreciate it. Andrew
Attachment:
pgpogOrEoWkEr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
