Hi,
sebb schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr:
> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb wrote:
> > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> >> Benson Margulies schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
> >> 14:06 Uhr:
> >>
> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
> >>> d
-1 to pick up the latest from trunk in a new RC.
Gary
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Also, Gary, please cast a vote of -1 if that is your opinion. Requesting
> action without a vote doesn't actually help anyone (especially because
> release votes are decided by a majority).
Also, Gary, please cast a vote of -1 if that is your opinion. Requesting
action without a vote doesn't actually help anyone (especially because
release votes are decided by a majority). I do not plan on closing this
vote until we actually get some votes.
**PMC, yet again, we've exceeded the vo
Oh, you did? I thought I did an update before I sent my last email and
didn't see any changes from you. Perhaps I just missed it then :)
Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi,
I am sorry for not being clearer. I've already updated trunk with 'as good
as it gets for now' code. These are the low-hanging fruit
Hi,
I am sorry for not being clearer. I've already updated trunk with 'as good
as it gets for now' code. These are the low-hanging fruit changes I wrote
about plus updates to the latest Commons Net and IO IIRC (on my phone now).
I would like a new RC to pick up these changes, see my other email(s
Thanks Benedikt for stating you'll vote. I look forward to it.
Greg, thanks again for making the time here and I see that you have
requested a new RC, but I do not wish to honor it unless you commit to
writing a patch with the changes you want to make in a very quick
timeframe (a day or two).
Gary -- how quickly can you turn around a patch to fix this? Without a
patch, I am still in favor of 2.1 being released as is. 2.1.1 can be
released with these fixes at your earliest convenience.
Gary Gregory wrote:
Just for completeness, I'm advocating we do this now, but new methods to
inter
(catching up)
Thanks for writing this note, Sebb. It completely aligns with my
opinion. In the docs from Oracle which you earlier linked, method
additions *do not* break binary compatibility. I'm a little confused why
this is being brought up for at least a second time now (could have been
th
Just for completeness, I'm advocating we do this now, but new methods to
interfaces could be added as subinterfaces as in FileContent2 extends
FileContent.
Gary
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:52 AM, sebb wrote:
> I have just looked again at the Clirr errors.
>
> Apart from the interface method additi
Please note that I'm requesting one more RC.
For details, see the thread "[VFS] BC breaks in VFS 2.1 RC1" starting here
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201605.mbox/%3CCACZkXPy2R2m-95yme4J8ZbRQVtj%3DHaEZ7LncR7aU_QYAVt3UCA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Thank you,
Gary
On Sun, May 8, 20
Am 08.05.2016 um 10:51 schrieb Dennis Kieselhorst:
> Am 07.05.2016 um 16:44 schrieb Oliver Heger:
>> Thank you for updating build.xml.
>>
>> There has been some discussion to drop the ant build completely as it
>> tends to become outdated. Most Commons components already did this, and
>> I would
As far as I could see, mvn site-deploy is running the
maven-scm-publish-plugin, that is using that URL from
distribution-management. maybe someone configured it wrong. I'm happy
to pass the whole issue off to you.
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi Benson,
>
> Benson Mar
Hi Ate,
Can we create jira tickets for each story in the proposal as a next step?
Regards,
Woonsan (Sent from my iPhone)
> On Dec 23, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>
> We'll now make a start with executing on the below proposal, moving to Java 8
> first and then introducing JSON datamod
On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb wrote:
> On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> Benson Margulies schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
>> 14:06 Uhr:
>>
>>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Benson Margulies schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
> 14:06 Uhr:
>
>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
>> done for 2.4?
>>
>
> I see sebb's point.
Hello Daipeng,
Benedikt Ritter schrieb am Mi., 4. Mai 2016 um
09:14 Uhr:
> 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 b
Benson Margulies schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
14:06 Uhr:
> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
> done for 2.4?
>
I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
components ha
Hi Benson,
Benson Margulies schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
14:05 Uhr:
> When I arrived as the RM, I found a URL in there that ended with
> 'commons-i'.
>
> So, when I did the release, I patched it to end with 'commons-io'
> before running the site-deploy that runs the maven-scm-publish-plugin.
>
Hello Josh,
thank you for pushing this release. Sorry I haven't voted yet. I will have
time tomorrow morning to have a look.
Benedikt
Josh Elser schrieb am Fr., 6. Mai 2016 um 16:24 Uhr:
> Well, we've already passed the 3day vote window and have no binding votes.
> **PMC, please vote.**
>
> (T
I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
done for 2.4?
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 13:16, wrote:
>> Author: bimargulies
>> Date: Fri May 6 12:16:39 2016
>> New Revi
When I arrived as the RM, I found a URL in there that ended with 'commons-i'.
So, when I did the release, I patched it to end with 'commons-io'
before running the site-deploy that runs the maven-scm-publish-plugin.
The result was javadoc at the root of the site, instead of down where
it belongs.
sebb schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 13:28 Uhr:
> The way that Javadocs are done on many components is:
>
> apidocs/ contains the latest Javadoc. That may be the last release or
> it may be trunk.
>
> javadocs/api-vvv/ contains the Javadoc for specific versions.
>
> These dirs are linked from the
sebb schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 13:17 Uhr:
> On 6 May 2016 at 13:31, wrote:
> > Author: bimargulies
> > Date: Fri May 6 12:31:46 2016
> > New Revision: 1742539
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742539&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Fix the javadoc publication URL.
>
> -1
>
> That is no
The way that Javadocs are done on many components is:
apidocs/ contains the latest Javadoc. That may be the last release or
it may be trunk.
javadocs/api-vvv/ contains the Javadoc for specific versions.
These dirs are linked from the menu as appropriate.
The javadocs/api-xxx folder is created b
On 6 May 2016 at 13:16, wrote:
> Author: bimargulies
> Date: Fri May 6 12:16:39 2016
> New Revision: 1742534
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
> Log:
> Honor both tagging conventions?
This is potentially confusing.
I think it should have been discussed first.
> Added:
On 6 May 2016 at 13:31, wrote:
> Author: bimargulies
> Date: Fri May 6 12:31:46 2016
> New Revision: 1742539
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742539&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix the javadoc publication URL.
-1
That is not only used for Javadoc.
It is used for the entire site.
> Modified:
>
Am 07.05.2016 um 16:44 schrieb Oliver Heger:
> Thank you for updating build.xml.
>
> There has been some discussion to drop the ant build completely as it
> tends to become outdated. Most Commons components already did this, and
> I would be in favor of this.
>
>
Definitely +1, I was wondering why
>
>> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/integration.html
>> links to https://continuum-ci.apache.org which no longer exists. What
>> about setting up a job on http://builds.apache.org?
> no objections from my side.
>
>
Alright currently I've no permission to create jobs, so eit
+1
Oliver Heger schrieb am Sa., 7. Mai 2016 um
16:44:
> Thank you for updating build.xml.
>
> There has been some discussion to drop the ant build completely as it
> tends to become outdated. Most Commons components already did this, and
> I would be in favor of this.
>
> WDYT?
> Oliver
>
> Am 0
29 matches
Mail list logo
