Re: svn commit: r1632011 - /commons/proper/email/trunk/pom.xml

2014-10-17 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 10/17/2014 03:52 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:15 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 October 2014 14:19, ggreg...@apache.org wrote: Author: ggregory Date: Wed Oct 15 13:19:50 2014 New Revision: 1632011 URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1632011 Log: Update Oracle

[ALL] How to handle GitHub pull requests

2014-10-17 Thread Duncan Jones
Hi everyone, Some of our contributors like to use GitHub pull requests (PRs) as a means of providing patches. Until now, I've tended to access the .patch version of these pull requests and apply them in SVN. Is there a preferred approach to take here? I have a GitHub account, so presumably I

Re: [ALL] How to handle GitHub pull requests

2014-10-17 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 17/10/2014 09:44, Duncan Jones a écrit : Is there a preferred approach to take here? I have a GitHub account, so presumably I could be given rights to the repositories I commit to (lang) and this would allow me to merge PRs directly into trunk. Would such changes be reflected in our SVN

Re: [ALL] How to handle GitHub pull requests

2014-10-17 Thread Duncan Jones
On 17 October 2014 09:07, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote: Le 17/10/2014 09:44, Duncan Jones a écrit : Is there a preferred approach to take here? I have a GitHub account, so presumably I could be given rights to the repositories I commit to (lang) and this would allow me to merge PRs

Re: [ALL] How to handle GitHub pull requests

2014-10-17 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 17/10/2014 10:16, Duncan Jones a écrit : Do you happen to know if GitHub will react to commit messages from SVN in order to close PRs, such as described in [1]? Yes it does. Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Analysis of commons-jelly-1.0 commons-launcher-1.1 dependencies on JDK-Internal APIs

2014-10-17 Thread Rory O'Donnell
Hi Benedict, As I already mentioned we have prepared guidance on migrating some of the more common usage patterns of JDK-internal APIs to supported public interfaces. The list is on the OpenJDK wiki [0], along with instructions on how to run the jdeps analysis tool yourself . I have prepared

Re: [math] GitHub vs ASF Repo

2014-10-17 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Hi Hank, Le 16/10/2014 20:20, Hank Grabowski a écrit : OK. I submitted the pull request yesterday. I'm going to now remove the diff from JIRA. https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/2 Thank you. I have merged this request and pushed the result to our main repository. The only changes

[lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Benedikt Ritter
Hi, 2014-10-16 15:30 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com: snip In TomEE the stack uses [lang], then [lang3] was created and now TomEE needs [lang] + [lang3] where actually it only needs [lang] features, ie suppose package didn't change then we wouldn't have had any issue. So

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
2014-10-17 12:23 GMT+02:00 Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org: Hi, 2014-10-16 15:30 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com: snip In TomEE the stack uses [lang], then [lang3] was created and now TomEE needs [lang] + [lang3] where actually it only needs [lang] features, ie

[GitHub] commons-collections pull request: clarified javadoc for getKey() a...

2014-10-17 Thread alexanderkjall
GitHub user alexanderkjall opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/4 clarified javadoc for getKey() and size() You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/alexanderkjall/commons-collections

[lang] New compare() methods in LANG-536 pull request match Java source - is this ok?

2014-10-17 Thread Duncan Jones
Hi, James has authored a fine patch for LANG-536 (see below), but it does include some code that exactly matches Java 7 source. Specifically, the various compare(primitive, primitive) methods that have been added to BooleanUtils, NumberUtils and CharUtils are identical to the methods provided in

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Gary Gregory
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-17 12:23 GMT+02:00 Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org: Hi, 2014-10-16 15:30 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com: snip In TomEE the stack uses [lang], then [lang3] was created

Re: [math] GitHub vs ASF Repo

2014-10-17 Thread Hank Grabowski
Thanks for the heads up. I had core.autocrlf set to true in my git global settings but maybe GitHub's software wasn't honoring it without the explicit gitattributes file, that I've now configured. We will see when I do a pull request for some of those other features in the near future. On Fri,

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
2014-10-17 13:52 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-17 12:23 GMT+02:00 Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org: Hi, 2014-10-16 15:30 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Benedikt Ritter
2014-10-17 14:42 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com: 2014-10-17 13:52 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-17 12:23 GMT+02:00 Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org: Hi,

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
2014-10-17 15:28 GMT+02:00 Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org: 2014-10-17 14:42 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com: 2014-10-17 13:52 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com: On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Matt Benson
It's not just the broken parts that your dependencies may be using. The strategy Commons uses is the only way any of us know to permit forward movement while avoiding jar hell. Matt On Oct 17, 2014 8:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-17 15:28 GMT+02:00 Benedikt

[Math] Disagreeing about how MATH-1138 has been handled (Was: [math] GitHub vs ASF Repo)

2014-10-17 Thread Gilles
Hi. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:46:53 +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Hi Hank, Le 16/10/2014 20:20, Hank Grabowski a écrit : OK. I submitted the pull request yesterday. I'm going to now remove the diff from JIRA. https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/2 Thank you. I have merged this request

Re: [Math] Disagreeing about how MATH-1138 has been handled (Was: [math] GitHub vs ASF Repo)

2014-10-17 Thread Hank Grabowski
Gilles, This is the original changes to get the bicubic spline working. These were originally committed as a diff that was attached to the JIRA incident. The suggestions in your email were in response to my questions about work carrying forward from that point. I have been very explicit and

asf git mails (was:: [3/8] git commit: Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master')

2014-10-17 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
Hello, was this an automatically generated patch mail or is this coming from the ASF GIT? In the later case, I wonder if it is possible to includethe [Math] tag or at least the repo name/path in the subject? Gruss Bernd Am Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:41:27 - schrieb l...@apache.org: Merge

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
I did it twice or more. it is not magic but the goal is to put removed/changed classes outside the core project (yes it implies some modules). this way the core part (what i call core here is what doesn't change) stays the same with same packages and only what moves changes. I know it is easier

Re: Analysis of commons-jelly-1.0 commons-launcher-1.1 dependencies on JDK-Internal APIs

2014-10-17 Thread Paul Libbrecht
Rory, I see no attachments here. Can you post it to some web-place please? paul On 17 oct. 2014, at 10:42, Rory O'Donnell rory.odonn...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Benedict, As I already mentioned we have prepared guidance on migrating some of the more common usage patterns of JDK-internal

[Math] Github vs. ASF Repo vs. Rest of World (Non Apache Github Users)

2014-10-17 Thread Ole Ersoy
Hi, I'm following the discussion of how MATH-1138 was handled (Which I enjoy reading because I'm very impressed with how eloquently everyone communicates their points of view). Just a warning that I might be ignoring [2] (Stolen from Gilles), because I have suggested this before:

Re: Analysis of commons-jelly-1.0 commons-launcher-1.1 dependencies on JDK-Internal APIs

2014-10-17 Thread Rory O'Donnell
commons-launcher attached. Rgds,Rory On 17/10/2014 19:22, Paul Libbrecht wrote: Rory, I see no attachments here. Can you post it to some web-place please? paul On 17 oct. 2014, at 10:42, Rory O'Donnell rory.odonn...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Benedict, As I already mentioned we have prepared

Re: [Math] Disagreeing about how MATH-1138 has been handled (Was: [math] GitHub vs ASF Repo)

2014-10-17 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Hi all, Le 17/10/2014 16:23, Gilles a écrit : Hi. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:46:53 +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Hi Hank, Le 16/10/2014 20:20, Hank Grabowski a écrit : OK. I submitted the pull request yesterday. I'm going to now remove the diff from JIRA.

Re: Analysis of commons-jelly-1.0 commons-launcher-1.1 dependencies on JDK-Internal APIs

2014-10-17 Thread Paul Libbrecht
Thanks Rory, why would org.w3c.* or org.relaxng.* be JDK internal? Does it mean… it's going to be included in JDK 9? (probably as a conflicting version with some priority to included jars thus maybe breaking) ? Those are trusted software providers since years (Jelly is quite old). paul On 17

Re: Analysis of commons-jelly-1.0 commons-launcher-1.1 dependencies on JDK-Internal APIs

2014-10-17 Thread dalibor topic
On 17.10.2014 21:20, Paul Libbrecht wrote: Thanks Rory, why would org.w3c.* or org.relaxng.* be JDK internal? Please see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/ for a list of Java SE 8 API packages. Neither org.relaxng nor org.w3c.dom.html/ranges are part of it. cheers, dalibor topic

Re: svn commit: r1632011 - /commons/proper/email/trunk/pom.xml

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
I see; that will really mess up the Maven classpath, because it won't be able to detect that com.sun.mail:javax.mail:1.5.2 is a later version of javax.mail:mail:1.4.7 So if there are dependencies on both, then both will be added to the classpath. They also appear to have created copies of

Re: asf git mails (was:: [3/8] git commit: Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master')

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8382 On 17 October 2014 19:06, Bernd Eckenfels e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote: Hello, was this an automatically generated patch mail or is this coming from the ASF GIT? In the later case, I wonder if it is possible to includethe [Math] tag or at

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
On 17 October 2014 19:08, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: I did it twice or more. it is not magic but the goal is to put removed/changed classes outside the core project (yes it implies some modules). this way the core part (what i call core here is what doesn't change) stays

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
Yes, that what i said we were not impacted even if the stack is big. Once again in theory you are right but in practise that's boring and creates averhead for nothing. Le 17 oct. 2014 22:08, sebb seb...@gmail.com a écrit : On 17 October 2014 19:08, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com

Re: [Math] Disagreeing about how MATH-1138 has been handled (Was: [math] GitHub vs ASF Repo)

2014-10-17 Thread Hank Grabowski
I didn't want to address the situation in my original response since I was on a smart phone, a bit torqued up by the original e-mail and I didn't want to further agitate the situation by addressing the original implementation. Since it seems that's all happened anyway, if you still want my newbie

Re: [Math] Github vs. ASF Repo vs. Rest of World (Non Apache Github Users)

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
On 17 October 2014 19:49, Ole Ersoy ole.er...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm following the discussion of how MATH-1138 was handled (Which I enjoy reading because I'm very impressed with how eloquently everyone communicates their points of view). Just a warning that I might be ignoring [2] (Stolen

Re: [Math] Github vs. ASF Repo vs. Rest of World (Non Apache Github Users)

2014-10-17 Thread Hank Grabowski
The nice thing about Github, from my perspective as a person with only read-only access to the ASF repositories, is that it provides me with the ability to work in my own fork and then initiate pull requests that can be incorporated into the root repository. I think it is still ideal that the

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Duncan Jones
On 17 Oct 2014 21:11, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that what i said we were not impacted even if the stack is big. Once again in theory you are right but in practise that's boring and creates averhead for nothing. You're not making a lot of sense here. Sebb explained

[GitHub] commons-lang pull request: Multiline recursive to string style

2014-10-17 Thread janmaterne
GitHub user janmaterne opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/34 Multiline recursive to string style Works with ToStringBuilder to create a deep toString(). But instead a single line like the RecursiveToStringStyle this creates a multiline String

Re: [Math] Github vs. ASF Repo vs. Rest of World (Non Apache Github Users)

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
On 17 October 2014 21:16, Hank Grabowski h...@applieddefense.com wrote: The nice thing about Github, from my perspective as a person with only read-only access to the ASF repositories, is that it provides me with the ability to work in my own fork and then initiate pull requests that can be

Re: [Math] Github vs. ASF Repo vs. Rest of World (Non Apache Github Users)

2014-10-17 Thread Hank Grabowski
Ah, that is a more complicated question. Those discussions definitely aren't part of the repository. As someone now recently bitten by the confusion in where discussions should be taking place, I agree there should be a good documentation of those swim lanes. I'm new to contributing to open

Re: [Math] Disagreeing about how MATH-1138 has been handled

2014-10-17 Thread Gilles
Hi Hank. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:31:26 -0400, Hank Grabowski wrote: Gilles, This is the original changes to get the bicubic spline working. These were originally committed as a diff that was attached to the JIRA incident. The suggestions in your email were in response to my questions about

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
Each time you break an api extract this part in compatibility (deprecated) n-1 jar and export new one in the v n jar. Grabbing pom dependecy you get by default n jars but if you want you can exclude include jars to get n-1 apis and moreover you didnt break anything for 80% of users. I know it is

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
On 17 October 2014 21:37, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Each time you break an api extract this part in compatibility (deprecated) n-1 jar and export new one in the v n jar. Grabbing pom dependecy you get by default n jars but if you want you can exclude include jars to get

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread Paul Benedict
FWIW, I have found no difficulty moving code from lang2 to lang3. It's a breeze. I did a wholesale replacement of the package name and then fixed any compiler problems due to API differences. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:51 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 October 2014 21:37,

Re: svn commit: r1632011 - /commons/proper/email/trunk/pom.xml

2014-10-17 Thread Gary Gregory
Each project that finds itself in a mess with have to do explicit excludes... bummer Gary On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: I see; that will really mess up the Maven classpath, because it won't be able to detect that com.sun.mail:javax.mail:1.5.2 is a later

Re: [lang] Differences in commons-lang (2.x) and commons-lang3 prevent TomEE project from migrating completely (Was: Re: [JCS] release?)

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
On 17 October 2014 21:57, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote: FWIW, I have found no difficulty moving code from lang2 to lang3. It's a breeze. I did a wholesale replacement of the package name and then fixed any compiler problems due to API differences. Which is why we do it that way,

Re: [Math] Github vs. ASF Repo vs. Rest of World (Non Apache Github Users)

2014-10-17 Thread Ole Ersoy
On 10/17/2014 03:12 PM, sebb wrote: On 17 October 2014 19:49, Ole Ersoy ole.er...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm following the discussion of how MATH-1138 was handled (Which I enjoy reading because I'm very impressed with how eloquently everyone communicates their points of view). Just a warning

Re: [lang] New compare() methods in LANG-536 pull request match Java source - is this ok?

2014-10-17 Thread James Sawle
Whilst the changes are the same as the Java 7 implementations, these in fact came from OpenJDK implement ions and match the expected behaviour as defined by the Javadoc. Any effort to change these so that that have less resemblance to the Oracle implementation will just cause detrimental side

Re: [lang] New compare() methods in LANG-536 pull request match Java source - is this ok?

2014-10-17 Thread James Sawle
I apologise for the spelling mistakes in the previous message. Need to remember not to send messages after drinks on a Friday :p Sent from my iPhone On 17 Oct 2014, at 22:56, James Sawle jamessa...@hotmail.com wrote: Whilst the changes are the same as the Java 7 implementations, these in

Re: [lang] New compare() methods in LANG-536 pull request match Java source - is this ok?

2014-10-17 Thread sebb
On 17 October 2014 22:56, James Sawle jamessa...@hotmail.com wrote: Whilst the changes are the same as the Java 7 implementations, these in fact came from OpenJDK implement ions and match the expected behaviour as defined by the Javadoc. Any effort to change these so that that have less

Re: [lang] New compare() methods in LANG-536 pull request match Java source - is this ok?

2014-10-17 Thread James Sawle
How do you create new implementations of such basic functionality that is so explicitly defined within the API? It is like suggesting that we write 1+1 as 1+((1+1)-1) just to look different. They should also be made public as they are still useful for Java 6 and prior (and unfortunately there

Re: [lang] New compare() methods in LANG-536 pull request match Java source - is this ok?

2014-10-17 Thread Duncan Jones
On 17 October 2014 23:41, James Sawle jamessa...@hotmail.com wrote: How do you create new implementations of such basic functionality that is so explicitly defined within the API? It is like suggesting that we write 1+1 as 1+((1+1)-1) just to look different. I think sometimes it's about