On 28.05.14 19:15, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi
>
> any objection to use debug level for first log message
> in org.apache.commons.jcs.engine.control.CompositeCache#dispose(boolean)?
>
> It prints something like:
>
> mai 28, 2014 7:13:02 PM
> org.apache.commons.jcs.engine.control.CompositeCach
On 28.05.14 13:47, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> I'm convinced of it (why the comment was this way). I'll try to rework it
> this week based on the LockFactory we spoke about in another thread.
Please try to make sure that your conviction is proven by some unit test.
Bye, Thomas.
---
Hi Thomas,
sounds ok for me, do you want I take it or do you want to do it?
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-05-29 10:44 GMT+02:00 Thomas Vandahl :
> On
On 29.05.14 10:49, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> sounds ok for me, do you want I take it or do you want to do it?
>
Go ahead.
Bye, Thomas.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=31588&projectId=286
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 29 May 2014 17:00:04 +
Finished at: Thu 29 May 2014 17:04:32 +
Total time: 4m 27s
Build Trigger: Sche
Hi,
Am 29.05.2014 01:37, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> Hi,
>
> JIRA has several bugs marked as fixed in beanutils 1.8.4 but this
> version was never released. Is it correct to assume they were fixed in
> 1.9.0?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310460&version=123
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=31591&projectId=286
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 29 May 2014 17:21:03 +
Finished at: Thu 29 May 2014 17:25:02 +
Total time: 3m 59s
Build Trigger: Sche
Hi
we should be as before now excepted we use ReentrantLock instead of
synchronized and method using a single structure (actually the map in
practice) which relies on ConcurrentHashMap thread safety.
Build passes locally (not sure why continuum is not happy but it was the
case before).
BTW I hav
+1
(To make it explicit.)
Oliver
Am 26.05.2014 21:39, schrieb Oliver Heger:
> This is a vote to release Commons BeanUtils 1.9.2 based on the first RC.
> There was a fix related to a security issue which should now be made
> available.
>
> BeanUtils 1.9.2 RC1 is available for review here:
> h
This vote has passed with the following votes:
Benedikt Ritter:+1
Phil Steitz:+1
Thomas Neidhart:+1
Emmanuel Bourg: +1
Gary Gregory: +1
Oliver Heger: +1
All votes were binding, no other votes were cast.
Thank you all for the reviews and tak
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=31600&projectId=65
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 29 May 2014 20:20:07 +
Finished at: Thu 29 May 2014 20:21:42 +
Total time: 1m 35s
Build Trigger: Sched
Hi,
I'm trying to setup write access for the clone I have of the github
[math] repository. I thought that since every commit in that repository
already had a git-svn-id it would be relatively easy, so I ran git svn
init and git svn fetch. But the fetch has been running for ~5 hours now
and seems t
On 29/05/2014 23:16, Evan Ward wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to setup write access for the clone I have of the github
> [math] repository. I thought that since every commit in that repository
> already had a git-svn-id it would be relatively easy, so I ran git svn
> init and git svn fetch. But the f
13 matches
Mail list logo
