Hi all,
The first release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny.
Tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC1/
(r1621539)
Release notes:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/bcel/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
Distribution files:
https://dist.apache.o
On 19 September 2014 00:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The first release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny.
>
> Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC1/
> (r1621539)
>
> Release notes:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commo
Le 19/09/2014 02:44, sebb a écrit :
> [Either the rev or hashes are needed in the vote e-mail so the final
> released artifacts can be traced back to the vote if necessary]
Can we keep the release process simple please? The last time we
discussed the process we wanted to simplify it, but it seems
On 19 September 2014 07:01, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/09/2014 02:44, sebb a écrit :
>
>> [Either the rev or hashes are needed in the vote e-mail so the final
>> released artifacts can be traced back to the vote if necessary]
>
> Can we keep the release process simple please? The last time we
>
+1
On 09/18/2014 08:44 PM, sebb wrote:
On 19 September 2014 00:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Hi all,
The first release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny.
Tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC1/
(r1621539)
Release notes:
https://dist.apache
On 19 September 2014 00:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The first release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny.
>
> Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC1/
> (r1621539)
>
> Release notes:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commo
Le 19/09/2014 17:24, sebb a écrit :
> The source archive does not agree with SVN, as it is missing several files:
>
> LICENSE-header.txt
> checkstyle.xml
> docs/verifier/chap1.bmp
> docs/verifier/chap1.eps
Thank you for the review sebb. These files are not required to build the
code, so I think
On 19 September 2014 18:05, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/09/2014 17:24, sebb a écrit :
>
>> The source archive does not agree with SVN, as it is missing several files:
That should have read: "missing several files, including:"
>>
>> LICENSE-header.txt
>> checkstyle.xml
>> docs/verifier/chap1.bm
>
>
> > Please review the release candidate and vote.
> > This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
> > [ ] +0 OK, but...
> > [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
> > [X] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>
What is referenced in the pom
-1 for the missing files from the source archives and the French mix up in
the FB report.
The language in the FindBugs reports can be configured in the plugin config
IIRC. I've seen that done recently but can't recall which project.
Can we do that from commons-parent?
Gary
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014
Le 20/09/2014 14:28, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> The language in the FindBugs reports can be configured in the plugin config
> IIRC. I've seen that done recently but can't recall which project.
>
> Can we do that from commons-parent?
Good idea but how do you do that? I see nothing to configure the
I see this in Log4j 2:
org.codehaus.mojo
findbugs-maven-plugin
${findbugs.plugin.version}
true
-Duser.language=en
Normal
Default
${log4jParentDir}/findbugs-exclude-filter.xml
Gary
On Thu, Sep 25, 201
Thank you Gary, I confirm it works.
Emmanuel
Le 26/09/2014 21:27, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> I see this in Log4j 2:
>
>
> org.codehaus.mojo
> findbugs-maven-plugin
> ${findbugs.plugin.version}
>
> true
> -Duser.language=en
> No
13 matches
Mail list logo
