Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
On 31-10-15 01:52, Vincent Privat wrote: > I see https://packages.debian.org/sid/josm depends on jmapviewer 1.11 and > not 1.12, is it OK? It works with both, so no need to require the latest version. JMapViewer 1.12 was a bugfix release, the API didn't change. That's quite fortunate so we didn't need to bother the freeplane maintainer for another compatibility fix. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
OK great, just wanted to be sure :) I have a few other remarks on the Debian package. The package still depends on libandroid-json-org-java and libcommons-codec-java, they should be dropped: - org.json was dropped in 6756, see https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9590 - Apache Commons Codec was dropped in 8149, see https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11257 commons-codec.jar must also be removed from 00-build.patch 2015-10-31 9:43 GMT+01:00 Sebastiaan Couwenberg : > On 31-10-15 01:52, Vincent Privat wrote: > > I see https://packages.debian.org/sid/josm depends on jmapviewer 1.11 > and > > not 1.12, is it OK? > > It works with both, so no need to require the latest version. > > JMapViewer 1.12 was a bugfix release, the API didn't change. > > That's quite fortunate so we didn't need to bother the freeplane > maintainer for another compatibility fix. > > Kind Regards, > > Bas > > -- > GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 > Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 > > ___ > josm-dev mailing list > josm-dev@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev > ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JOSM feedback on Java 7,8,9, including Jigsaw EA
Hi Alan, Thanks a lot for your answers and guidance. We will follow-up bugs with appropriate mailing lists and attach test cases every time possible. Best regards, Vincent 2015-10-31 11:47 GMT+01:00 Alan Bateman : > On 30/10/2015 15:29, Vincent Privat wrote: > > : > - Some issues didn't make it to the public JIRA and remained in the > private bug database. Can we please have more information on them (why have > they apparently been rejected)? The incident numbers > are JI-9009025, JI-9010791, JI-9009449, JI-9008003. > > > Incidents submitted via bugs.sun.com have historically been hit or miss. > I don't know why these four were not moved to the JDK bug database, but > here they are now: > > JI-9009025 => https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8141093 > > JI-9010791 => https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8141094 > > JI-9009449 => https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8141095 > > JI-9008003 => https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8141096 > > The OpenJDK mailing lists aren't a support channel but reproducible test > cases are a wonderful way to contribute. So if you have test cases or > patches that can be added to these bugs for the issues that are in OpenJDK > then it's best to follow-up on the appropriate mailing list (likely awt-dev > or swing-dev for some of these). > > > : > > Finally: > - We had a terrible experience when trying to report a bug against JAXP. > We detected a severe data corruption problem in StaX when dealing with > Unicode SMP characters, so we reported it, including a sample Java program > 100% reproducible, in January 2013 (JAXP-76 on java.net JIRA). As no > activity was visible on this JIRA instance, we tried to use the standard > Java bug report, three times, without success, with incident > numbers 2431783 (2013-01-23), 2627098 (2013-10-28) and 9048481 > (2014-11-28), without any answer. On 2014, November 29th we discovered by > chance that the bug had finally been detected and fixed internally, as > JDK-8058175 (created and resolved in September 2014). We reported back to > the public JAXP JIRA instance, again without any answer. 6 months later we > finally got the ironic and laconic answer "Please report issues to the > OpenJDK Bug System", which was exactly was we were trying to do for 2 > years! Can you please tell us why our bug reports were all silently ignored > while the bug was real, and if is it still worth reporting bugs against > JAXP? Thankfully we had far better experiences with other components of the > JDK. > > JAXP development moved from the jaxp.java.net project to OpenJDK in early > 2012. The project main page should be clearer on this point. I wasn't aware > there was a JIRA instance but it probably should be shut down to avoid > confusion. > > In any case, here is the mapping: > > 2431783 => https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132652 > > 2627098 => this one is on the old Sun web incident reporting system, I > don't know how to move it to JIRA but it seems to be a dup of JDK-8141097 > or JDK-8058175. > > JI-9048481 => https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8141097 > > As you note, JDK-8058175 has been fixed in JDK 9 builds for some time > (since jdk9-b31). If you can verify the fix with the JDK 9 builds then you > could lobby on jdk8u-dev to have it back-ported to 8u. > > -Alan. > ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] JMapViewer 1.12 release to accompany JOSM 8964?
On 31-10-15 14:11, Vincent Privat wrote: > I have a few other remarks on the Debian package. > The package still depends on libandroid-json-org-java and > libcommons-codec-java, they should be dropped: > > - org.json was dropped in 6756, see > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9590 > - Apache Commons Codec was dropped in 8149, see > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11257 > > commons-codec.jar must also be removed from 00-build.patch Thanks, fixed in josm (0.0.svn8969+dfsg-2). Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] Translation discussions
This is something clearly missing. It is a 10-year old Launchpad bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/25 2015-10-20 11:21 GMT+02:00 Dirk Stöcker : > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Holger Mappt wrote: > > would be good, I think Transifex supports that. Dirk, do you still work on >> a Trac based system? Will it support translation discussions? To be able to >> discuss the source string would be good too. >> > > A little. It's still my goal. I hope I have some time for this in the > holidays end of the year. > > same issue? Should we change more source strings to improve the >> translation process? Or is it good as it is? >> > > Clearly a YES, as currently nearly no feedback goes into the source > strings :-) > > Ciao > -- > http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) > > > ___ > josm-dev mailing list > josm-dev@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev > ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
