Re: [VOTE] Release commons-parent 9

+1, looks good. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry correct URL for the diffs since the last release is here: > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml?r1=631209&r2=634135&diff_format=h > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at

Re: [VOTE] promote commons-build-plugin from the Sandbox

+1. On Feb 6, 2008 1:25 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 6, 2008 9:20 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 for promotion > > > > I'd like to take a closer look before a release though. > > Great, the more eyes the better :) > > Niall > > > Niall Pemberton w

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-sandbox-parent 3 (2nd attempt)

+1 with thanks. On Jan 16, 2008 10:30 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to release commons-sandbox-parent pom version 3 - then last > > release used commons-parent version 4 and the only changes are to > > upgrade to the latest

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-sandbox-parent 3

+1 with thanks. On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 AM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1. > > Hen > > On Jan 6, 2008 8:06 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to release commons-sandbox-parent pom version 3 - then last > > release used commons-parent version 4 and

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-parent 6

+1. On Jan 3, 2008 9:34 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/3/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There have been quite a few changes to commons-parent since version 5 > > was released so I'd like to release version 6. > > > > > [X] +1 > > [ ] =0 > > [

Re: [all] Deleting STATUS.html files

+1 for banishment to the land of wind and ghosts. On Dec 27, 2007 3:11 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/27/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any +1s to delete the STATUS.html files? > > > > Many are out of date and I don't see that they add much value even > > w

Re: [VOTE] Relase Version 2 of Commons Skin (2nd attempt)

+1. On Dec 11, 2007 1:08 PM, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > I have managed to work round the problems I had the other night trying > > to release commons-skin-2 and have staged a release in the snapshot > > repo here: > > > > http://people.apache.or

Re: [all] m2 release process

I remember when I did it that I had checked out the tag from SVN and done the release:perform voodoo from there. I didn't get anywhere fast with -DconnectionUrl, but I couldn't tell you why not. *kicking self for not documenting that at time, KNEW it was gonna come back to haunt me* On Dec 7, 200

Re: [all] m2 release process

Also, since we sign RCs instead of just the final approved build, that part of the doc should move to preparation instead of release. On Dec 7, 2007 1:01 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For logging I followed the current release procedure [1], which worked > well. Sections 11 and

Re: [all] m2 release process

I did email 1.1 with it; I updated the release docs in commons-build with some of what I learned. The only part not documented is publishing m2 artifacts to maven.org, but I was able to figure it out without much trouble. On Dec 7, 2007 10:58 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hav

Re: [lang] 1.3 problems

Point taken :) On Dec 3, 2007 10:12 AM, Christoph Kutzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not entirely true > > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/download.html > "On Solaris 8 - J2SE 1.3.1 is continuing in the Sun End of Life (EOL) > process. The EOL transition period began Oct 25, 2004 and will

Re: [lang] 1.3 problems

Another issue is that Sun has end-of-lifed JDK 1.3. It doesn't make sense to me to continue to support a platform even Sun has given up on. On Dec 3, 2007 7:26 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We've three 1.3 specific compile time pro

Re: [lang] 1.3 problems

1.4 time. On Dec 1, 2007 8:20 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've three 1.3 specific compile time problems. Do we move to 1.4, or > just fix these? > > Two currently in SVN: > >[javac] > /Users/hen/apache/commons-proper/lang/src/java/org/apache/commons/lang/text/ExtendedMessa

Re: [VOTE] Relase Version 2 of Commons Skin

+1. Thanks! On Nov 29, 2007 5:58 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to release Commons Skin. The main change is to import > commons-maven.css into site.css so that the ApacheCon logo appears on > sites built with m2. The only other changes is to move to version 5 of

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-logging 1.1.1 (take 4)

Same thing (the 2.4-1 bit) happened to me when I was doing the email release. I wasn't able to repro it, so I didn't file a bug and wrote it off to cosmic rays. But obviously there's something strange going on. +1 nonbinding on the release, BTW. On Nov 22, 2007 1:54 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PR

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Configuration 1.5 based on RC3

+1 nonbinding. On Nov 14, 2007 6:03 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2007 9:31 PM, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is the 3rd (and hopefully last) attempt for the release vote for > > Commons Configuration 1.5. > > > > The artifacts of the release candid

Re: [lang] TextTestSuite failures

ATES.length; i++) { > if (i > 0) { > @@ -228,7 +227,7 @@ > } > > public void testFullTime() { > -DateFormat df = DateFormat.getTimeInstance(DateFormat.FULL); > +DateFormat df = DateFormat.getTimeInstance(DateFormat.FULL, > Locale.US); > St

Re: [lang] TextTestSuite failures

.MessageFormat's (String, Locale) constructor > must yield a buggy object instance, then? > > -Matt > > > > --- Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well that settles that :) Apparently you can't set > > the locale from the >

Re: [lang] TextTestSuite failures

put is > > > that theres an > > > assumption in the test that the default Locale is > > > US. If that is the > > > case then these tests should set the default locale > > > to Locale.US > > > before executing. > > > > > >

Re: [lang] TextTestSuite failures

the test that the default Locale is US. If that is the > case then these tests should set the default locale to Locale.US > before executing. > > Niall > > > On Nov 13, 2007 7:38 PM, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Odd. WFM on my ubuntu with Java 1.4

Re: [lang] TextTestSuite failures

Odd. WFM on my ubuntu with Java 1.4 and 5. On Nov 13, 2007 11:31 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just tried running "maven test" for Commons Lang and the > TextTestSuite had a bunch of failures. I don't really have time to > look into this at the moment. > > Niall > > Testcase:

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-parent 5

+1 nonbinding. On Nov 11, 2007 6:37 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > Thanks! > > Phil > > On Nov 11, 2007 2:43 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > It's time to release commons-parent again. The changes since the last > > release in summary: > > > > -

Re: [validator] svn commit: r590558 - in /commons/proper/validator/trunk/src/main: java/org/apache/commons/validator/Field.java resources/org/apache/commons/validator/resources/validator_1_4_0.dtd

Indeed it doesn't. Paul tricked me. :) I'll fix it. On 10/30/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Author: bspeakmon > > Date: Tue Oct 30 21:55:42 2007 > > New Revision: 590558 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=59

Re: [COLLECTIONS] status of 1.5 branch

Collections has been on my long-term want-to-get-involved-with list too, but I don't see a feasible technical plan for the desired generics refactoring. In the past when I've done similar stuff I've found that you can't really do it incrementally. If someone could throw together a roadmap that expl

Re: [validator] EmailValidator.isValidIpAddress()

I was thinking that too. Seems like a good compromise between compatibility and cleanup. On 10/23/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on : > > > That's certainly the solution of least impact and works for me. Sucks > > that we would have to keep a whole depende

Re: [validator] EmailValidator.isValidIpAddress()

That's certainly the solution of least impact and works for me. Sucks that we would have to keep a whole dependency for one deprecated method in one deprecated class, but life is hard sometimes. On 10/22/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/23/07, Ben

[validator] EmailValidator.isValidIpAddress()

After refactoring EmailValidator to use InetAddressValidator, I went to get rid of (or at least deprecate) isValidIpAddress. However, it takes a parameter of type Perl5Util from oro. Since it's a protected method, we can't eliminate it in a point release, but we also want to get rid of oro for 1.4,

Re: [validator] svn commit: r585762 - in /commons/proper/validator/trunk/src: main/java/org/apache/commons/validator/routines/InetAddressValidator.java test/java/org/apache/commons/validator/routines/

Ack. My filter ate this conversation; sorry for not seeing it earlier. This is my new machine and I forgot to twiddle the svn props. I'll get that sorted out. On 10/18/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/18/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/17/07, [EMAIL P

Re: [validator] urge to commit rising...

's too good to let go. > > Paul > > On 10/11/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Makes perfect sense. > > > > In the spirit of starting slow, I think I'll look at porting oro regexes > > to > > JDK 1.4 first and making su

Re: [validator] urge to commit rising...

d of the year due to the other demands on my time. On 10/11/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/9/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been looking at validator for a week or so since my RL job now > requires > > me to su

[validator] urge to commit rising...

I've been looking at validator for a week or so since my RL job now requires me to support it. To that end I'd like to help out. Eventually I'd want to look closely at JSR 303, especially having annotations for fields and methods, but for the current work I'm happy to help out on the 1.4 port and r

Re: [lang] notice of itch to commit

That's why I brought it up, just wanted that feature for as cheap as possible. :) I know some work has been done on a JDK 5 lang; if we add new stuff to 2.3I'd like it to be as easy as possible to integrate into whatever comes out of the 5 effort. On 10/5/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

Re: [lang] notice of itch to commit

I like the idea. Are you going to support varargs for the JDK 5-savvy? On 10/5/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You mean this extension would allow some sort of > > "registry" which is > > keyed by the second argument of the format

Re: POLL: Anyone interested in a new CONCURRENT component

ementation that is geared towards resource locking. Or maybe more > concurrent collections. Or pther special lock implementations. Or > locks with deadlock detections (like in commons transaction). > > Does that make sense? > > Oliver > > 2007/10/3, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PR

Re: POLL: Anyone interested in a new CONCURRENT component

My ears prick up at any mention of concurrency! What's the scope of this, though? With Doug Lea's library, the util.concurrent backport, and the JDK 5+ built-ins, what else is needed? On 10/3/07, Oliver Zeigermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks! > > I was wondering if anyone would be intere

Re: Bindingness of votes Was: Move Commons Proxy to Proper...

And I'll be more careful about vote-counting in the future. Being American, you'd think I'd watch that stuff more carefully :) On 9/28/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/28/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 29/09/2007, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9

Re: [proxy] Cutting a release...

Using provided doesn't tell maven to ignore the dependency, it just means that it's expected that the user will install it into his local repository himself or that it will be on the same classloader as the application when it's running. maven will still complain if it can't find it. Optional depe

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Commons Email 1.1 released

/email/ > > are copies of the 1.0 files. > > I've not checked any other mirrors. > > Note that removed files take longer to synch than updated or new > files, so for example the mirror above is still showing the 1.0 > release, although that has been removed from the sour

Re: [PROPOSAL] Move Commons Proxy to Proper

+1 nonbinding. On 9/28/07, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > On 9/28/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EM

Re: [ALL] Maven 2 Build and xdocs directory...

If you do stick with the xdocs/ directory, though, you'll have to override the location of the site.xml (at least I did for maven 2 in the email 1.1release). On 9/28/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/28/07, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, do I just copy my old

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Commons Email 1.1 released

only guarantee that you are running non-compromised versions of Commons Email. --Ben Speakmon, on behalf of Apache Commons

[RESULT] Release Email 1.1 RC2

This vote has closed. Results: +1 - Joerg, sebb, Oliver +1 nonbinding - me I will proceed with release.

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

committers/tools/releases. Another of Henri's little toys. So are you giving +1 for this RC or are there other concerns? On 9/27/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, OK. > > BTW, where/what is this verify_sigs tool? > > > On 27/09/2007, Ben Speakmon &

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

e? > If it's faulty, it needs to be fixed - or abandoned as a check. > > S. > On 26/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turns out those assemblies had an outdated POM in them. I've rebuilt > them > > with the pom tagged as RC2. Since there

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

OK, I've now got your key. > > However, the following sigs don't work for me: > > commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip.asc > commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz.asc > commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar.asc > > Same files that have the MD5 problems. > > S/// > > On 25/09/200

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip > > Expect: 21fd56446a77476370d2b0c1bc87b241 > > Found: 1a1b4e432d1ec67af99a66576f53db7e > > > > S/// > > On 24/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > New source and

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied, and signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just wanted to make sure. > > I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in > source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ben Speakmo

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben Speakmon wrote: > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention it specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be deployed next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to make sure they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's required for this release

[VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

The zombie continues to shuffle across the post-apocalyptic wasteland... I'm proposing RC2 which addresses the issues found in RC1. Artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC2/ Staged site: http://people.apach

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1

> I agree with Oliver though that the backward compat isssue requires a > major version bump and ideally deprecation before that. Any way it > can be worked around? Sure, I can just rename the new field and deprecate the new one. A few more observations. > > 1) I notice that the src distro incl

[VOTE] Release Email 1.1

*groan* *shuffle* a zombie commons project rises to stalk the earth again, hungry for votes... Seriously, it'll be two years next Saturday since 1.0 was released, and after a fair bit of work on closing existing bugs and adding simple new features, I'd like to put it to a vote. Artifacts: http:/

Re: svn commit: r577480 - /commons/proper/email/trunk/pom.xml

Makes sense to me. I'll revert it. On 9/19/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMO we should keep components consistent on this - and this isn't any > more "official" than using the properties - in fact its exactly the > same way, except instead of inherting the plugin config from t

Re: (EMAIL) Donation/Proposal for Commons-Email 2.0

This is really interesting. Thanks! On 9/14/07, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ramiro, > > Thanks for that! Would you mind creating a jira issue for it? That > would help to keep track. > > cheers > -- > Torsten > > On 13.09.2007, at 06:00, Ramiro Pereira de Magalhaes wrote: > > > Pe

Re: [email] 1.1 release time?

Cool. I'll get those taken care of for RC1. Thanks! On 9/14/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/14/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All, > > > > After a lot of work and even more missed time, I think email has >

[email] 1.1 release time?

All, After a lot of work and even more missed time, I think email has progressed to the point where work on a release may begin. All recently reported bugs, aside from one enhancement that would require nontrivial rewriting, are closed, and I think it's time to get the work done since 1.0 into use

Re: [continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Commons Configuration

I think gets passed to the running application, not the VM. Try instead. There's an example here: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-surefire-plugin/examples/system-properties.html On 8/29/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hm, the following modifications of the pom did not show

Re: [continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Commons Configuration

If you find that the JVM required for the test is important, you can specify which one to use in the surefire plugin configuration. Never tried it myself, though. On 8/27/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Michiel, > > thanks for this information. Obviously the tests depend on the

Re: svn commit: r568574 - in /commons/proper: beanutils/trunk/pom.xml chain/trunk/pom.xml codec/trunk/pom.xml configuration/trunk/pom.xml dbcp/trunk/pom.xml email/trunk/pom.xml io/trunk/pom.xml jci/tr

I'm on board with the SCM URL change, but I agree with Dennis. Is it that much of a burden to just edit the name in Continuum once the pom.xml has been added? On 8/22/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Author: bayard > > Date: Wed Aug 22 04:50:58 2007 >

Re: [continuum] BUILD ERROR: Commons-Email

Yep, found that too. After changing that, it built fine. I also changed the default java profile to 1.4. Sorry about the failed build notification. I meant to get it working before spamming the list. :) On 8/21/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem here is the scm connection

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-sandbox-parent 2

Right on. +1 nonbinding. On 8/10/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > The next step in the TLP process is to release version 2 of the > commons-sandbox-parent project. A full diff of the pom.xml changes can > be found at this address: > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-parent 4

Nice. +1 nonbinding. On 8/6/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/6/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Following the TLP process I think that we are now ready to release > > version 4 of the commons-parent project. > > > > > [X] +1 > > [ ] =0 > > [ ] -1