Re: [VFS] WIP specific release instructions

sebb wrote: Have a look at the scripts in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/scripts/ I used those for VALIDATOR and NET. Cool. Thanks for sharing. It would be good if the generic commons release documents referenced these if they are expected to be re-used by other commons projects'

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

Thanks for investigating and sharing your findings, Jörg! I guess commons-vfs has some room for improvement on IBM JDKs. I have been using Oracle JDK6/7 here locally which has been fine. I think this would be great to investigate further for future releases. Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi, I've

RE: [CRYPTO] Discuss to proceed the alpha release for Commons Crypto

Sorry for the typo in the second paragraph. Hi, After weeks of collaborated work from the community, the renaming, building, API refactoring and documentation are almost done. Much thanks to the Commons community for all your support. The community folks proposed to go with an alpha release if

[CRYPTO] Discuss to proceed the alpha release for Commons Crypto

Hi, After weeks of collaborated work from the community, the renaming, building, API refactoring and documentation are almost done. Much thanks to the Commons community for all your support. The community folks to prepare an alpha release if we want sooner. So I suggest we can proceed the alpha

[RESULT][VOTE] Commons NET 3.5 based on RC3

Thanks to all who tested the RC and voted; here are the results: Stian Soiland-Reyes +1 (non-binding) Gary Gregory +1 (binding) Oliver Heger +1 (binding) Benedikt Ritter +1 (binding) Jörg Schaible +1 (binding) There being at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 than -1 the vote passes. I will

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote: > Hello, > > Java 9 is not supported (only 8) The build with Java 9 is a heads-up. However, vfs 2.0 was release when Java 7 was one month old ... > , for the other problems I am not sure, do > you consider that an blocker? This depends actually on the cause.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

Hello, Java 9 is not supported (only 8), for the other problems I am not sure, do you consider that an blocker? Gruss Bernd -- http://bernd.eckenfels.net -Original Message- From: "Jörg Schaible" To: dev@commons.apache.org Sent: Do., 05 Mai 2016 0:39 Subject:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

Hi, I've tried to build the release from the source tarball using my compiler zoo. Passes: - Sun JDK 1.6 - IcedTea/OpenJDK 6 - Oracle JDK 1.7 - IcedTea/OpenJDK 7 - Oracle JDK 1.8 Tests fail with IBM JDKs 1.6 and 1.7, IcedTea/OpenJDK 3 and Java 9: = %<

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Commons Parent 40 released

Just a heads-up: Due to missing signature of the animal sniffer for Java 9 you have to run maven with option -Danimal.sniffer.skip to build with a recent Java 9. sebb wrote: > Commons Parent 40 has been released. > [It may take a few hours before the artifacts are available from Maven >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

Thanks Stian! Do you plan to report the noexec issue? If not let me know and I will file one. I thought we already had one but I cant find it. I will do some windows tests and then vote. Gruss Bernd Am Wed, 4 May 2016 13:28:54 +0100 schrieb Stian Soiland-Reyes : > +1

Re: US Export classification & ECCN registration for encryption in commons?

On 4 May 2016 at 13:35, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for spotting this.. > > > Apache Commons Crypto is not listed on > http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ - does it need to be? (One > would assume so..) > > Also it was raised that Commons VFS depends on

Re: [VFS] WIP specific release instructions

Have a look at the scripts in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/scripts/ I used those for VALIDATOR and NET. On 4 May 2016 at 04:43, Josh Elser wrote: > Here's what I've been doing. The generic instructions are woefully > incomplete (before someone chimes in again - no,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

Hi Stian, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: [snip] > -1 Unclassified use of encryption libraries Bouncy Castle/Apache > Mina/SSHD/Hadoop/jsch/Jetty (plus some AES128 in DefaultCryptor) - but > Commons VFS is not classified on > http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ Sorry, but I fail to see the

Re: [math]: [MATH-1330] - KMeans clustering algorithm, doesn't support clustering of sparse input data.

Hello. On Sun, 1 May 2016 02:57:59 +0300, Artem Barger wrote: ​Hi,​ On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles wrote: Therefore I started to wonder why not to use RealVector instead, since it has sparse implementation so I will be able to leverage it. The

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Bernd Eckenfels wrote: Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400 schrieb Josh Elser: See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a manner that is allowed for ASF projects. Which is why it

US Export classification & ECCN registration for encryption in commons?

Hi, Sorry for spotting this.. Apache Commons Crypto is not listed on http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ - does it need to be? (One would assume so..) Also it was raised that Commons VFS depends on Bouncy Castle/Apache Mina/Jetty/SSHD/Hadoop/jsch and has encryption binding for AES128 -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc1

+1 (non-binding) +1 signatures +1 hashes +1 LICENSE, NOTICE 0 README.md says 2.0 0 Extra README.txt (confusing) +1 RELEASE-NOTES.txt +1 mvn apache-rat:check +1 maven repository signatures/hashes +1 maven repository *distribution* matches dist/ 0 mvn clean install OK (but 1 test fails on tmpfs) +1

Re: [CRYPTO] How to build CRYPTO on Mac OS 10.11?

Thank you Dapeng! I'll give it a try later today. Sun, Dapeng schrieb am Mi., 4. Mai 2016 um 05:33 Uhr: > Hi Benedikt, > > Hope this information will be helpful > > 1. Upgrade openssl to 1.0.1c above using brew(http://brew.sh/)[1]: > Check your openssl version, by default

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400 schrieb Josh Elser : > See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that > the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a > manner that is allowed for ASF projects. Which is why it is not built or