First, I must apologize for being a little sloppy in my analysis of the RC.
As previously noted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-262 is open and
is a problem for Daikon. However, I just noticed my changes - as applied by
r1702349 | sebb | 2015-09-10 16:30:33 -0700 (Thu, 10 Sep 2015)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
>> 21:04 Uhr:
>>
>> > [ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes
>> ;-)
>> > ]
>> >
>>
>> I
Thanks to sebb's suggestion of using shade I was able to test RC6.
Unfortunately, I am unable to vote as rev 1747124 breaks Daikon. (We are
required to build with -Werror). This change is not in the active tree so
that's good. The problem is that
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-2
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
> 21:04 Uhr:
>
> > [ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes
> ;-)
> > ]
> >
>
> It only took about 20 minutes to create RC6, so no tomatoes ;-)
>
>
> >
>
Hi,
Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
21:04 Uhr:
> [ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes ;-)
> ]
>
It only took about 20 minutes to create RC6, so no tomatoes ;-)
>
> Pardon me for asking since we've been talking about BC forever, but, while
> we a
[ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes ;-) ]
Pardon me for asking since we've been talking about BC forever, but, while
we are not 100% BC and we explain that well, why bother making BC-breaking
changes that appear to be in the non-essential clean up category for wh
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
> On 21 June 2016 at 00:14, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Sorry - I'm replying to my own post. Is there any chance that there is a
>> revision point in the active tree that corresponds exactly to RC6 but
>> without the path changes? I could do some testing on that.
>
> I don't t
shington.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:12 PM
To: 'Commons Developers List'
Cc: 'findbugs-disc...@cs.umd.edu'; 'findbugs-c...@lists.sourceforge.net'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6
Well I was clearly confused about this release. It has
t;> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:mar...@cs.washington.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:12 PM
>> To: 'Commons Developers List'
>> Cc: 'findbugs-disc...@cs.umd.edu'; 'findbugs-c...@lists.sourceforge.net'
>> Su
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:mar...@cs.washington.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:12 PM
> To: 'Commons Developers List'
> Cc: 'findbugs-disc...@cs.umd.edu'; 'findbugs-c...@lists.sourceforge.net'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 bas
Well I was clearly confused about this release. It has reverted back to the
old class hierarchy in the name of binary compatibility. I can see now that
that was the intention and it makes sense. However, I cannot test it (and
hence vote up or down) as I am certainly not going to edit all my s
Still +1 (for the previous state, if binary isn't changed compared with the
previous RC build).
Am 20. Juni 2016 21:36:56 MESZ, schrieb Benedikt Ritter :
>Hi,
>
>after some build related problems with RC5, I'd like to call a vote to
>release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6. The only changes
12 matches
Mail list logo
