On 12/12/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/12/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There appears to be some behind-the-scenes-magic here. The September
> 9th logs [1] (date of the release) show the JEXL 1.1 artifacts being
> added (at the above URL). Having read
On 12/12/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/12/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2 rsync directory:
>
> http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/commons-jexl/jars/
>
There appears to be some behin
On 12/12/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2 rsync directory:
http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/commons-jexl/jars/
There appears to be some behind-the-scenes-magic here. The September
9th logs [1] (date o
On 12/12/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:58 PM:
> On 12/12/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:35 AM:
>>
>>> JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2
Niall Pemberton wrote on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:58 PM:
> On 12/12/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:35 AM:
>>
>>> JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2 rsync
>>> directory:
>>>
>>>
> http://people.apache.
On 12/12/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:35 AM:
> JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2 rsync directory:
>
> http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/commons-jexl/jars/
It's available in the M1 &
Niall Pemberton wrote on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:35 AM:
> JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2 rsync directory:
>
> http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/commons-jexl/jars/
It's available in the M1 & M2 central repo though:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/
JEXL 1.1 doesn't appear to have been added to the m2 rsync directory:
http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/commons-jexl/jars/
Niall
On 9/7/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This VOTE has passed.
Result: 5 +1s. No other votes.
+1:
Rahul Akolkar
Dion Gillard
Phi
Rahul Akolkar wrote on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:44 PM:
> On 9/6/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Site:
>>
>> - site/index.html: the menu has as second item a reference to
>> javadoc-1.0, which should be now 1.1 (and is a dead-link anyway)
>> - site/index.html: the li
This VOTE has passed.
Result: 5 +1s. No other votes.
+1:
Rahul Akolkar
Dion Gillard
Phil Steitz
Oliver Heger
Jörg Schaible
I plan to cut the release this weekend.
Thanks to everyone who took time to comment / vote.
-Rahul
On 8/29/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a vote
On 9/6/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Site:
- site/index.html: the menu has as second item a reference to javadoc-1.0,
which should be now 1.1 (and is a dead-link anyway)
- site/index.html: the link in the menu to the examples should better point
to the viewcvs.cgi version (see l
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 9/6/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 9/5/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I'm happy for the checkstyle report/config to be fixed post 1.1
>> > release.
>> >
>> I don't see this as showstopper either - as stated above, I am +1 with
>
On 9/6/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/5/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm happy for the checkstyle report/config to be fixed post 1.1 release.
>
I don't see this as showstopper either - as stated above, I am +1 with
release as is and understand Rahu's reserva
On 9/5/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/6/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phil is correct in pointing out that they be fixed, but IMO, which
> side of 1.1 that happens on is secondary -- as long as it happens.
> Doing it later gives us a clean process now (ideally
On 9/6/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phil is correct in pointing out that they be fixed, but IMO, which
side of 1.1 that happens on is secondary -- as long as it happens.
Doing it later gives us a clean process now (ideally, no mods between
voting and a release, and though we hav
Thanks to everyone's feedback so far. Sorry, I was away over the
weekend, couldn't reply sooner. Consolidating couple of replies in
one:
On 9/3/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks good to me. +1 assuming build has been tested on 1.2, which is
what the jar manifest specifies.
Th
Just my 2p: if I remember well, there's a way checkstyle errors can
produce a text-like report with :line-number:message which is
exactly what most compilers would output to make errors clickable in,
say, jEdit and Emacs to name a few... That helped me every time i was
haunted by the checkstyle
Rahul,
I'll start looking at the checkstyle config and issues if you're happy
with that?
On 9/4/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks good to me. +1 assuming build has been tested on 1.2, which is
what the jar manifest specifies.
One small nit, which you could do without another RC
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/3/06, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The content of the archives looks good. However I had a problem with
verifying the signatures:
I downloaded the KEYS file and did a
gpg < KEYS
Try gpg --import < KEYS
Sigs and hashes check OK for me.
Phil
-
Looks good to me. +1 assuming build has been tested on 1.2, which is
what the jar manifest specifies.
One small nit, which you could do without another RC, IMO, or ignore:
The checkstyle report is not clean. One real javadoc error is
flagged, some missing javadoc, missing package javadoc for a
On 9/3/06, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The content of the archives looks good. However I had a problem with
verifying the signatures:
I downloaded the KEYS file and did a
gpg < KEYS
Try gpg --import < KEYS
Sigs and hashes check OK for me.
Phil
-
The content of the archives looks good. However I had a problem with
verifying the signatures:
I downloaded the KEYS file and did a
gpg < KEYS
pub 1024D/6883C846 2004-08-03 Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sub 1024g/32E95995 2004-08-03
pub 1024D/58812457 2005-07-19 Rahul Akolkar (Sign jakart
I'll check it this weekend :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Ran the usual gamut of checks, looks good to me.
---
[X] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
-Rahul
+1.
On 9/1/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ran the usual gamut of checks, looks good to me.
> ---
> [X] +1 I support this release
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -0
> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>
-Rahul
--
Ran the usual gamut of checks, looks good to me.
---
[X] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
This is a vote for releasing Commons JEXL 1.1 based on RC1.
RC1 has been available for more than two weeks. It (with release
notes, code signing keys, site etc.) is here:
http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/jexl/
---
[ ] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 I oppose
26 matches
Mail list logo
