Thanks for your comments. I have create BEANUTILS-431 [1]. Since Craig
McClanahan doesn't seem to follow the ML I will contact him directly to be
sure he is okay with this change.
Benedikt
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-431
2013/3/5 Romain Manni-Bucau
> Hi
>
> FYI it seem
> Why not 1.3 ?
>
> Or at least wait until you see how much is changed before deciding
> whether it deserves a point release or a minor release bump.
nice idea, let's keep 1.2.3 until something drives us on increasing
the minor version
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi
Hi,
I was checking out what should be solved before releasing a new
version and in my opinion most of PMD [1] errors can be omitted, maybe
"These nested if statements could be combined" should be resolved, but
the rest I don't see a point instead of just satisfying PMD itself.
Some of the Findbug
On 5 March 2013 20:56, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
>
>> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
>> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
>> though it is a bit of a jump.
>> Is the addition of generics sufficiently si
Hi,
I'd like to call a vote for releasing Commons Logging 1.1.2 based on RC1.
This release candidate has the following changes compared to 1.1.1
(copied from the release notes):
Fixed Bugs:
o LOGGING-124: The jar manifest now contains proper OSGi-related
metadata information.
o LOGGING-144: Lo
Hi
FYI it seems @author is discouraged:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-jmeter-dev/200402.mbox/%3c4039f65e.7020...@atg.com%3E
Le 5 mars 2013 22:46, "Niall Pemberton" a
écrit :
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > @author tags are no longer
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @author tags are no longer used, because authors are documented in pom.xml.
> I don't know the history of BeanUtils so I'm asking if there are any
> arguments against moving authors from source code files to pom.xml.
> I will wait f
I'm a bit short on time right now. I'll try to have another look on this, this
weekend.
Benedikt
Send from my mobile device
Am 04.03.2013 um 10:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi :
>> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>
> +1
>
>> Are you okay with this or should I rever
Am 05.03.2013 um 21:56 schrieb Simone Tripodi :
> Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
>
>> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
>> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
>> though it is a bit of a jump.
>> Is the addition of generics sufficien
On 03/05/2013 09:34 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I think that requires an INFRA ticket IIRC.
ok, created INFRA-5942.
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@comm
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
> It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
> Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
> though it is a bit of a jump.
> Is the addition of generics sufficiently significant?
what you said makes perfectly sense, 2.0.
On 5 March 2013 19:57, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
>>> update and bugfix.
>>
>> So why the change to 2.0?
>
> I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
> introduction of generics in digester justified the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> >>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
> >>> update and bugfix.
> >>
> >> So why the change to 2.0?
> >
> > I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
> > introduction of generics in
Hi,
while trying to upload the RC1 artifact to Nexus, I get the following error:
Artifact upload failed.
Cannot find a matching staging profile!
I guess it is because of the groupId: commons-logging
There is only a profile for org.apache.commons
As its only a bugfix release, we should not touc
>>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
>>> update and bugfix.
>>
>> So why the change to 2.0?
>
> I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
> introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
> digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
>
>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
>> update and bugfix.
>
> So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
Is the gener
On 5 March 2013 15:34, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
> update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
> best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripod
Hallo Jörg!
>> Sounds great.
>>
>> But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
>> Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
>> bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
>> the API export is *not* updated to 2.0, otherwise
On 5 March 2013 18:57, KONTRA, Gergely wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Sounds great.
>> >
>> > But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
>> > Currently the API is exported a
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> Felix Meschberger wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Sounds great.
> >
> > But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
> > Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
> > bundle/library version. If
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> Sounds great.
>
> But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
> Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
> bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
> the API export is *not
On 5 March 2013 16:43, Gary Gregory wrote:
> +1. Why not Java 6 since 5 is mostly dead.
1.5 is not totally dead, so why exclude those users who still have Java 1.5?
If there is some feature of 1.6 that would make a big difference to
the performance/functionality then it night be OK, but there is
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version: Currently
the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the bundle/library version. If
you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure the API export is *not* updated
to 2.0, otherwise consumers in OSGi envi
+1. Why not Java 6 since 5 is mostly dead.
Gary
On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:05, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
>
> since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
> recently involved other commons component.
>
> Any objection?
> TIA,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simon
On 5 March 2013 08:34, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2013/3/5 sebb :
>> On 5 March 2013 00:10, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>> 2013/3/5 sebb :
On 4 March 2013 20:57, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2013/3/4 sebb :
>> I just fixed the Digester download page by adding
>> download_digester.cgi to to
>>
On 5 March 2013 15:46, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi again Gergo,
>
> patch looks OK to me, the problem we would have ATM is the backward
> compatibility, since there methods signature change.
>
> Is there anybody that can suggest how to handle that situation?
Create new methods which return long ra
+1... jdk1.3...
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
> update and bugfix.
>
> best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripo
Hi again Gergo,
patch looks OK to me, the problem we would have ATM is the backward
compatibility, since there methods signature change.
Is there anybody that can suggest how to handle that situation?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http:
Hi Gergo,
> I've finished my patch for 2Gb+ uploads.
> Since I don't use portlets, it needs some additional fix for portlets (it's
> not broken, just returns -1 as the total size of the file, when it's over
> 2Gb.
>
> Gergo
very good, thanks, since I am doing some work on [fileupload], I am
revie
Dear all!
I've finished my patch for 2Gb+ uploads.
Since I don't use portlets, it needs some additional fix for portlets (it's
not broken, just returns -1 as the total size of the file, when it's over
2Gb.
Gergo
see
https://github.com/pihentagy/commons-fileupload/commit/16a677dd3c61acde530a5f54a
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi a
Hi all guys,
since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
recently involved other commons component.
Any objection?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On 5 March 2013 08:38, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> the current download_*.xml contains the version in a lot of places.
> What about using a property in the pom:
> x.x.x.
> moving the download_*.xml to download_*.xml.vm and replace hard coded
> version with ${currentReleasedVersion}.
> That will be only
2013/3/3 Benedikt Ritter
>
>
>
> 2013/3/2 Thomas Neidhart
>
>> On 03/02/2013 07:33 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> > 2013/3/2
>> >
>> >> Author: tn
>> >> Date: Sat Mar 2 18:12:46 2013
>> >> New Revision: 1451914
>> >>
>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1451914
>> >> Log:
>> >> [COLLECTIONS-366] A
the current download_*.xml contains the version in a lot of places.
What about using a property in the pom:
x.x.x.
moving the download_*.xml to download_*.xml.vm and replace hard coded
version with ${currentReleasedVersion}.
That will be only one place to update the value.
2013/3/5 sebb :
> On 4 M
2013/3/5 sebb :
> On 5 March 2013 00:10, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>> 2013/3/5 sebb :
>>> On 4 March 2013 20:57, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2013/3/4 sebb :
> I just fixed the Digester download page by adding
> download_digester.cgi to to
> /websites/production/commons/content/proper/commons-d
36 matches
Mail list logo
