+1,
built from source with my compiler zoo from Java 5 to 8.
Minor nit: Release notes do not state the required Java version.
Cheers,
Jörg
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all
>
> compared to RC1 there is no code change only the Javadocs of the
> _internal package are even more discouraging and the
Maven build works fine on Windows 8.1 with JDK 1.7. (With JDK 1.5 I get
the same OutOfMemoryError test failures as reported for the last RC.)
Artifacts and site look good.
+1
Oliver
Am 16.01.2014 20:56, schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
> Hi all
>
> compared to RC1 there is no code change only the Javado
+1
Tested with JDK 1.7 OSX 10.9.1, maven 2.2.1.
Verified release contents, hashes, sigs.
Thanks!
Phil
On 1/16/14, 11:56 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all
>
> compared to RC1 there is no code change only the Javadocs of the
> _internal package are even more discouraging and the directory tree
+1
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 16/01/2014 20:56, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> Hi all
>
> compared to RC1 there is no code change only the Javadocs of the
> _internal package are even more discouraging and the directory tree
> insite the tarballs/zips should hold the correct version number.
>
> Compress 1.
2014/1/17 Gary Gregory
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig
> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-01-17, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> >
> > > If you build the release from your son's account (or if you have
> > > exotic tastes) you may end up with a 'Build-By: spacepirate' field in
> > > the manifest,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2014-01-17, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> > If you build the release from your son's account (or if you have
> > exotic tastes) you may end up with a 'Build-By: spacepirate' field in
> > the manifest, which is a bit embarrassing.
>
> Now tha
On 2014-01-17, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> If you build the release from your son's account (or if you have
> exotic tastes) you may end up with a 'Build-By: spacepirate' field in
> the manifest, which is a bit embarrassing.
Now that's an idea. So I'll throw in a bit of desinformation with
future re
+1
Built from the tag, reports look good.
Apache Maven 3.1.1 (0728685237757ffbf44136acec0402957f723d9a; 2013-09-17
11:22:22-0400)
Maven home: C:\Java\apache-maven-3.1.1\bin\..
Java version: 1.7.0_51, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51\jre
Default locale: en_US
Le 17/01/2014 14:01, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> Well, this must have been that way for all releases I've ever
> created. :-)
>
> If I had the choice I'd rather remove the manifest attribute completely
> than filling it with noise (and yes, I do consider my apache ID noise in
> this case). Why wo
2014/1/17 Stefan Bodewig
> thanks for the review and the vote.
>
> On 2014-01-17, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> > One minor thing I've noticed is, that the Build-By MANIFEST header is set
> > to "stefan". I've learned that it should be set to you're Apache ID.
>
> Well, this must have been that way
thanks for the review and the vote.
On 2014-01-17, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> One minor thing I've noticed is, that the Build-By MANIFEST header is set
> to "stefan". I've learned that it should be set to you're Apache ID.
Well, this must have been that way for all releases I've ever
created. :-)
Hello Stefan,
I've reviewed this RC using:
Apache Maven 3.1.1 (0728685237757ffbf44136acec0402957f723d9a; 2013-09-17
17:22:22+0200)
Maven home: /usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.1.1/libexec
Java version: 1.7.0_45, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home:
/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.7.0_45.jdk/Cont
Hi all
compared to RC1 there is no code change only the Javadocs of the
_internal package are even more discouraging and the directory tree
insite the tarballs/zips should hold the correct version number.
Compress 1.7 RC2 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/co
13 matches
Mail list logo
