On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 12:40 +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The dependency on commons-lang is IMHO not really a
big issue. The jar
has ~ 200k and we are talking about a component
which is probably not
used on J2ME. If 200k for a
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Give us a patch. Code before words. As I said, I've looked into this
and I might do some work for 1.1. Not for 1.0.
I send this as a patch on Bugzilla today.
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe,
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Give us a patch. Code before words. As I said, I've looked into this
and I might do some work for 1.1. Not for 1.0.
I send this as a patch on Bugzilla today.
Cool. Thanks.
Regards
Henning
robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so, i'd suggest that email adopts a solution along those lines. the
simplest and quickest approach would be to simply copy the necessary
source and repackage it as org.apache.commons.email.lang. if people are
happy with this approach, i'd be willing
Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My -1 will change to -0 if there is no public API
dependency on [lang] (as the dependency can then be
removed in v1.1). Which means changing the superclass
of EmailException, and following the pattern of
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Give us a patch. Code before words. As I said, I've looked into this
and I might do some work for 1.1. Not for 1.0.
I send this as a patch on Bugzilla today.
The patches are now there. They remove the whole [lang] dependency by
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
c) The jar file is built on JDK1.4. Is that your target JDK version? If
your target is lower, then compiling using JDK1.4 can cause issues when
running with earlier versions. This discussion has occurred before in
the archives. The chances are that
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
d) Gump is currently failing commons-email. This doesn't give me
confidence in giving email a +1.
To quote Stefan: Gump is an experiment. Not a code testing tool.
Did you actually _look_ at the gump output? It says:
The build cannot continue
I'd much rather we build the release with jdk 1.3.
There are 1.4 specific methods, e.g. in StringBuffer that mean that
code compiled on 1.4 wont necessarily run on 1.3
On 9/2/05, Henning P. Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
c) The jar file
Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd much rather we build the release with jdk 1.3.
There are 1.4 specific methods, e.g. in StringBuffer that mean that
code compiled on 1.4 wont necessarily run on 1.3
I thought that the -source and -target switches of javac were intended
to deal with
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote on Friday, September 02, 2005 1:00 PM:
Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd much rather we build the release with jdk 1.3.
There are 1.4 specific methods, e.g. in StringBuffer that mean that
code compiled on 1.4 wont necessarily run on 1.3
I
--- Henning P. Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
d) Gump is currently failing commons-email. This
doesn't give me
confidence in giving email a +1.
Did you actually _look_ at the gump output? It says:
The build cannot continue because of
--- Henning P. Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Could you now please either supply strong facts (I
do agree up to some
point with you on the lang issue and I'm currently
looking into
it. But I see no way that we do any changes for the
1.0
Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The dependency on commons-lang is IMHO not really a
big issue. The jar
has ~ 200k and we are talking about a component
which is probably not
used on J2ME. If 200k for a really useful library is
a problem, then
commons-email isn't probably the
Which version of dumbster is being used? I specifically got a 1.3
version deployed to ibiblio to help us test this.
On 9/2/05, Henning P. Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd much rather we build the release with jdk 1.3.
There are 1.4 specific
There is only a 1.0.3, a 1.5 and a 1.6 version of dumbster @ ibiblio.
All three don't work with the 1.3 JDK.
Regards
Henning
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 22:47 +1000, Dion Gillard wrote:
Which version of dumbster is being used? I specifically got a 1.3
version deployed to
--
8-
[X ] +1 Release Email 1.0
[ ] +0 General support but not definitive
[ ] -0 Unhappy about the release but not definitive
[ ] -1 Do not release Email 1.0
Thanks!
Eric Pugh
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:50 -0400, Eric Pugh wrote:
--8-
[X] +1 Release Email 1.0
[ ] +0 General support but not definitive
[ ] -0 Unhappy about the release but not definitive
[ ] -1 Do not release Email 1.0
Eric Pugh wrote:
--8-
[ ] +1 Release Email 1.0
[ ] +0 General support but not definitive
[X] -0 Unhappy about the release but not definitive
[ ] -1 Do not release Email 1.0
-1
a) The
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Eric Pugh wrote:
--8-
[ ] +1 Release Email 1.0
[ ] +0 General support but not definitive
[X] -0 Unhappy about the release but not definitive
[ ] -1 Do not release Email 1.0
On 9/2/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
two more points
d) Gump is currently failing commons-email. This doesn't give me
confidence in giving email a +1.
Gump is failing with a port in use problem.
e) Text files, including the NOTICE and LICENSE use Unix line endings.
Since commons-email RC 1 there have been quite a few new release
candidates. At this point ALL the bugs in Bugzilla have been dealt
with. The code has been tagged as EMAIL_1_0_RC7 and differs from RC6
in some doc/code cleanup and minor refactoring.
The binaries and docs are available
Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[X] +1 Release Email 1.0
The binaries and docs are available from http://people.apache.org/
~epugh/commons-email/ I have ignored the unit tests as they are
currently failing due to some other reason on my box. They all pass
cleanly on other Commons
-Original Message-
From: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:50 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] Release Commons Email 1.0
Since commons-email RC 1 there have been quite a few new release
candidates. At this point ALL the bugs
: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:50 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] Release Commons Email 1.0
Since commons-email RC 1 there have been quite a few new release
candidates. At this point ALL the bugs in Bugzilla have been dealt
On 9/1/05, Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--8-
[x] +1 Release Email 1.0
[ ] +0 General support but not definitive
[ ] -0 Unhappy about the release but not definitive
[ ] -1 Do not release Email 1.0
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:13, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
From: Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
And, in the interests of finally getting a release out, especially since
we have the required +1 votes, can I just add the file by hand? Icky, I
know, but...
As this is a 1.0, personally I'd
the file by hand? Icky, I
know, but...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
+1 modulo the following nits:
* Binary distro includes
From: Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To what extent is the NOTICE.txt a mandatory requriement? TO me, it
looks just like the LICENSE.txt...
The NOTICE.txt is the thing that specifies the Apache name. It is essential,
and all releases must contain it in every jar, plus the top level of the src
and
redistributable jars?
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Arnaud HERITIER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:42 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
Do you use the ant plugin 1.8.1 for maven or the 1.9-SNAPSHOT ?
Arnaud
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:42 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
Do you use the ant plugin 1.8.1 for maven or the 1.9-SNAPSHOT ?
Arnaud
-Message d'origine-
De : Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé
]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
+1 modulo the following nits:
* Binary distro includes NOTICE.txt in the jar (top level, should
probably be with LICENSE.txt in META-INF) but not in the top level
]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
+1 modulo the following nits:
* Binary distro includes NOTICE.txt in the jar (top level, should
probably be with LICENSE.txt in META-INF) but not in the top level
Do you use the ant plugin 1.8.1 for maven or the 1.9-SNAPSHOT ?
Arnaud
-Message d'origine-
De : Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : jeudi 3 mars 2005 16:48
À : 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Objet : RE: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
Okay..
I'll take care
it fits into the commons-email
charter.
Eric Pugh
-Original Message-
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:24 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
Are there any open bugs/enhancements?
On Tue, 1
Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:24 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons email 1.0
Are there any open bugs/enhancements?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:01:03 -0800, Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My +1 of course!
[X] +1 Lets
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 06:58, Eric Pugh wrote:
[X] +1 Lets release commons-email, it's been too long!
[ ] 0 Commons-what? Not ready for release
[ ] -1 Don't release. I can't get dumbster (replace with your reason)
to work.
BTW i've checked the sums and signatures
- robert
+1 modulo the following nits:
* Binary distro includes NOTICE.txt in the jar (top level, should
probably be with LICENSE.txt in META-INF) but not in the top level
directory of the distribution.
* Source distro does not include NOTICE.txt
* Ant build.xml in source distro fails with
+1 (not a comitter)
-CS
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:58:37 -0800, Eric Pugh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
The commons-email RC3 release has been available for a couple days, and
has isn't fundamentally changed from the RC2 release that has been out
for a couple months. I'd like to move
[X] +1 Lets release commons-email, it's been too long!
[ ] 0 Commons-what? Not ready for release
[ ] -1 Don't release. I can't get dumbster (replace with your reason)
to work.
Matthias
thanks Eric!
Eric Pugh
-
To
My +1 of course!
[X] +1 Lets release commons-email, it's been too long!
[ ] 0 Commons-what? Not ready for release
[ ] -1 Don't release. I can't get dumbster (replace with your reason)
to work.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Are there any open bugs/enhancements?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:01:03 -0800, Eric Pugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My +1 of course!
[X] +1 Lets release commons-email, it's been too long!
[ ] 0 Commons-what? Not ready for release
[ ] -1 Don't release. I can't get dumbster (replace with your
Hi all,
The commons-email RC3 release has been available for a couple days, and
has isn't fundamentally changed from the RC2 release that has been out
for a couple months. I'd like to move to releasing the code here:
http://www.apache.org/~epugh/email/distributions/ as commons-email-1.0.
43 matches
Mail list logo
