I agree with Stephen and Brett. We *have* to do A, IMHO. The good
jar is what was released. We should not be distributing non-released
jars from java-repository at all, much less non-released jars named to
look like releases.
My votes are
A: +1
B: -0
C: -1
Brett,
Are there any tools that we
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project commons-primitives has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project commons-primitives has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niklas Gustavsson writes:
When issuing ftp.type(FTP.EBCDIC_FILE_TYPE), FTP will send TYPE B.
This is not correct according to RFC 959 where the EBCDIC type is
specified as E.
I'm pretty sure sending B is intentional since we do not
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Jakarta-commons Wiki
for change notification.
The following page has been changed by SimonKitching:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/CLI
The comment on the change is:
create page
New page:
##language:en
= About the
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 00:43 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
I agree with Stephen and Brett. We *have* to do A, IMHO. The good
jar is what was released. We should not be distributing non-released
jars from java-repository at all, much less non-released jars named to
look like releases.
Well, it
Author: skitching
Date: Sun Jul 17 04:11:51 2005
New Revision: 219391
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=219391view=rev
Log:
Point people at the wiki site for further info re 1.0 jars.
Modified:
jakarta/commons/proper/cli/branches/CLI_1_0_1_prepare/xdocs/index.xml
Modified:
Hi,
Notice of the availability of Release candidate 1 for CLI 1.0.1 was
posted a few days ago. As there have been no objections to the
*contents* of this release candidate, it seems time to put it to an
official vote.
I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
there
Simon Kitching wrote:
I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
there should *be* a 1.0.1 release while others have backed it. This vote
is an opportunity to see which approach people want to go with.
Regrettably, I must -1 this unless I see an email authorising us
Static namespaced attributes wrongly managed
Key: JELLY-214
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JELLY-214
Project: jelly
Type: Bug
Components: core / taglib.core
Versions: 1.0
Reporter: Paul
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
there should *be* a 1.0.1 release while others have backed it. This vote
is an opportunity to see which approach people want to go with.
...
My preferred option is to just fix
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35772.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hello Gary,
the current state of VariableFormatter is fine with me, it allows me
everything to do I need for [configuration].
I think the problem will be to satisfy other needs mentioned by others
in this thread (e.g. operating on a char[], a static interpolation
method that works without
Phil Steitz wrote:
Brett,
Are there any tools that we can use now to check md5's in
java-repository against releases on dist to make sure there are no
other cases like this?
Henk maintains something across all of dist, however there is a chance
that if someone purposely redeployed with
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 02:26 +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
snip
On the other hand people might be busy hacking
and chatting away in Stuttgart ;)
...anyone coming BTW?
i'll be arriving monday evening
- robert
-
To
On 17/07/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
there should *be* a 1.0.1 release while others have backed it. This vote
is an opportunity to see which approach people want to go with.
In NotImplementedException, the getMessage() method has the following code:
public String getMessage() {
if (super.getMessage() != null) {
return super.getMessage();
} else if (cause != null) {
return cause.toString();
} else {
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 22:58 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 17/07/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
there should *be* a 1.0.1 release while others have backed it. This vote
is an opportunity
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 19:31 +0200, Mattias Jiderhamn wrote:
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
there should *be* a 1.0.1 release while others have backed it. This vote
is an opportunity to see which approach
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 19:05 -0400, Steven Caswell wrote:
In NotImplementedException, the getMessage() method has the following code:
public String getMessage() {
if (super.getMessage() != null) {
return super.getMessage();
} else if (cause != null) {
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niklas Gustavsson writes:
Fair enough, but if it is treated as binary, shouldn't the type be I?
That's what I get for not doing my homework :) Okay, so I have no idea
why it is sending B (other than it being a mistake). I'm not even sure
why I thought the spec
21 matches
Mail list logo
