Hello,
I tried to raise that concern in the message already, but it is probably
worth repeating it explicitly: this is not a real bug
in the Commons-Collection class, and it might not be worse fixing it, as
there are possibly tons of other vectors. This was also addressed by the
original authors i
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:53:00 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:02:01 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On 11/07/2015 12:56 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 10:25 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> ello,
>>
>> I came across this article:
>>
>> http://foxglovesecurity.com/2015/11/06/what-do-weblogic-websphere-jboss-jenkins-opennms-and-your-application-have-in-common-this-vulnerability/
>>
>> It d
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:02:01 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Here is an idea that mig
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:02:01 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re ba
On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> compatibility, versioni
On 11/06/2015 10:25 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> ello,
>
> I came across this article:
>
> http://foxglovesecurity.com/2015/11/06/what-do-weblogic-websphere-jboss-jenkins-opennms-and-your-application-have-in-common-this-vulnerability/
>
> It describes attacks against common Java applications wit
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> >>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
> >>>
> >>> Agree that
On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>>
>>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically
>>> adhere
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically
>> adhere
>> to Commons rules - no breaks w
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:21:46 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 11:02 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backwar
ello,
I came across this article:
http://foxglovesecurity.com/2015/11/06/what-do-weblogic-websphere-jboss-jenkins-opennms-and-your-application-have-in-common-this-vulnerability/
It describes attacks against common Java applications with
pre-authentication requests using malicious Java Object ser
If math is broken up into smaller artifacts it will make it easier for users to
upgrade, even if it it breaks compatibility, as well as speed up the release
frequency. So for example:
commons-math-optimization (Or even more granular commons-math-optimization-lp,
commons-math-optimization-ga, c
On 11/6/15 11:02 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RE
Le 06/11/2015 14:55, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi Luc.
>
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:04:23 +0100, luc wrote:
>> Le 2015-11-06 02:34, Gilles a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:41:57 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/5/15 1:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 05/11/2015 12:25, Gilles a écrit :
>> Hel
Le 06/11/2015 18:31, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules -
Le 06/11/2015 18:18, sebb a écrit :
> On 6 November 2015 at 16:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules - no breaks withi
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RERO:
Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs -
On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules - no
Hi.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RERO:
Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
5.1... b
On 11/6/15 10:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 6 November 2015 at 16:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3
On 6 November 2015 at 16:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>
> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
> 5.1... bu
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:02:58 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 2:04 AM, luc wrote:
Le 2015-11-06 02:34, Gilles a écrit :
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:41:57 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/5/15 1:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 05/11/2015 12:25, Gilles a écrit :
Hello.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:13:00
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RERO:
Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
5.1... but even-numbered lines can include breaks - so 4.0 and 4.1
mi
On 11/6/15 2:04 AM, luc wrote:
> Le 2015-11-06 02:34, Gilles a écrit :
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:41:57 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 11/5/15 1:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 05/11/2015 12:25, Gilles a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:13:00 +0100, luc wrote:
>> Hi a
Hi Luc.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:04:23 +0100, luc wrote:
Le 2015-11-06 02:34, Gilles a écrit :
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:41:57 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/5/15 1:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 05/11/2015 12:25, Gilles a écrit :
Hello.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:13:00 +0100, luc wrote:
Hi all,
I w
Hello Pascal,
2015-11-05 20:25 GMT+01:00 Pascal Schumacher :
> Hello everybody,
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:summary-panel
> shows:
>
> RELEASE PLAN
> Lang 2.x - There are no plans for major work on the 2.x line, but bug fix
Le 2015-11-06 02:34, Gilles a écrit :
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:41:57 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/5/15 1:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 05/11/2015 12:25, Gilles a écrit :
Hello.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:13:00 +0100, luc wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to release 3.6 in the upcoming weeks.
There h
29 matches
Mail list logo
