On May 25, 2016 9:13 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" wrote:
>
> Agree, we should try to avoid including test-data that requires
> attribution - users of Commons CSV will then seemingly have to
> propagate the NOTICE when the data is not used at runtime.
>
> Is there a reason why we
Agree, we should try to avoid including test-data that requires
attribution - users of Commons CSV will then seemingly have to
propagate the NOTICE when the data is not used at runtime.
Is there a reason why we can't create equivalent test-CSV files (use
the same syntax and escapes), or is the
On 25 May 2016 at 00:13, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 24 May 2016 at 23:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > Ok, so maybe I just exclude these files from the release and add some
>> > Assume
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 24 May 2016 at 23:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > Ok, so maybe I just exclude these files from the release and add some
>>
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 23:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Ok, so maybe I just exclude these files from the release and add some
> > Assume calls in the tests. I can do that...
>
> As I wrote, the Unit test clearly
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:29 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 23:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Ok, so maybe I just exclude these files from the release and add some
> > Assume calls in the tests. I can do that...
>
> As I wrote, the Unit test clearly
On 24 May 2016 at 23:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Ok, so maybe I just exclude these files from the release and add some
> Assume calls in the tests. I can do that...
As I wrote, the Unit test clearly contains data extracted from the
FERC CSV files.
So the entire class needs
Ok, so maybe I just exclude these files from the release and add some
Assume calls in the tests. I can do that...
On May 24, 2016 3:04 PM, "sebb" wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:46 PM, sebb
On 24 May 2016 at 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:46 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 24 May 2016 at 22:09, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Gary Gregory
>> > wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:46 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 22:09, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Gary Gregory
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I just added a little more "docs" in revision 1745267. Awaiting
>
On 24 May 2016 at 22:09, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> I just added a little more "docs" in revision 1745267. Awaiting feedback.
>>
The commit is a comment in the POM in the RAT excludes section.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> I just added a little more "docs" in revision 1745267. Awaiting feedback.
>
Any thoughts? No need to start another RC until this is squared away.
Gary
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Gary Gregory
I just added a little more "docs" in revision 1745267. Awaiting feedback.
Gary
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> These files were discussed here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-175
>
> I never got a reply IIRC from FERC,
Hi All:
These files were discussed here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-175
I never got a reply IIRC from FERC, see the above link for my email.
So we decided to ship the files in the configuration as they still are in
1.4-RC1.
I looks like we want to do it differently now, so:
-
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moving this away from the vote thread...
>
> I'm pretty sure we've already discussed the problem with the ferc.gov file
> but I can't find a reference in the archives. Can anybody help?
> I agree with Stian,
On 23 May 2016 at 15:14, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moving this away from the vote thread...
>
> I'm pretty sure we've already discussed the problem with the ferc.gov file
> but I can't find a reference in the archives. Can anybody help?
> I agree with Stian, that we
16 matches
Mail list logo