Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Get a relocation in. problem solved. commons-vfs -
org.apache.commons. See e.g.
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/xerces/xerces/2.0.2/xerces-2.0.2.pom on
how to do that.
Relocations are only of use if the version is upward compatible, otherwise
it's
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.5 and the
requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
LargeTarTestCase has been added to the test-data
James Carman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to be for 1.0 here:
sebb wrote:
Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
return a FileSystem [1]
Can anyone else confirm that this is a sensible change?
[1]
On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
sebb wrote:
Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
return a FileSystem [1]
On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
Huh? If you look at the tag that is
sebb wrote:
On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
Huh? If you look at the
On 8 November 2010 07:32, Gary Gregory ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 18:14
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Backwards
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
sebb wrote:
Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
On 8 November 2010 10:37, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
sebb wrote:
Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
Le 08/11/2010 00:49, er...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: erans
Date: Sun Nov 7 23:49:42 2010
New Revision: 1032424
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1032424view=rev
Log:
MATH-195
Added requested Javadoc comment.
Removed unused import.
Fine. Thanks Gilles.
Luc
Modified:
+1 release it
I don't like using a build named commons-vfs-20070611.jar because no
official release exists...
Also, if VFS2 isn't backward compatible and lists all changes to make during
upgrade, we should consider patching FileContentInputStream to return false
in method markSupported()
See
sebb wrote:
The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
ant:ant ... 1.6.2 - 1.6.5
commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 - 3.1
commons-collections:commons-collections . 3.1 - 3.2.1
On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Perhaps someone thought it was needed for the Maven Antrun plugin?
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:13 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The following
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 04:46
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VFS] Update dependencies?
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
On Mon, Nov 8,
sebb wrote:
On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Perhaps someone thought it was needed for the Maven Antrun plugin?
No. VfsTask is based on Ant:
sebb wrote:
On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Actually, the tasks package uses org.apache.tools.ant (I was looking
for
On 8 November 2010 16:14, Gary Gregory ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 04:46
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VFS] Update
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1488projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Mon 8 Nov 2010 21:33:50 +
Finished at: Mon 8 Nov 2010 21:35:58 +
Total time: 2m 8s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Henning,
it isn't as simple as you believe. See, for example, this thread:
http://marc.info/?t=12825660982r=1w=2
The conclusion was, as I read it at the time, that you should expect
that users still have
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1491projectId=107
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Tue 9 Nov 2010 02:24:31 +
Finished at: Tue 9 Nov 2010 02:30:18 +
Total time: 5m 46s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
21 matches
Mail list logo
