I guess the XMLBeans release will anyway take some time, but I've found an
issue with [1],
please don't start preparing the POI release without that being resolved.
Andi
[1] https://github.com/apache/poi/pull/90
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Who would be in a position to follow up with Apache Foundation (or XMLBeans
PMC) about taking XMLBeans out of the attic?
Nick summarised the requirements, as follows:
* Vote to take it on
* Wait for attic PMC to confirm
* Get infra to unlock svn for xmlbeans
* Merge in fixes
* Test,
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Burch [mailto:apa...@gagravarr.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 12:59 AM
> To: POI Developers List
> Subject: Re: XMLBeans in 4.0.0 release
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, pj.fanning wrote:
> > I don't fancy trying to merge the
and another
in the POI project.
-Original Message-
From: Nick Burch [mailto:apa...@gagravarr.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 12:59 AM
To: POI Developers List
Subject: Re: XMLBeans in 4.0.0 release
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, pj.fanning wrote:
> I don't fancy trying to merge the
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, pj.fanning wrote:
I don't fancy trying to merge the xmlbeans and poi ant builds. I've been
trying for an hour or more and still getting issues.
There's no need to do this!
We'd keep the two codebases separate, and probably release at different
times. (XMLBeans hardly ever
I don't fancy trying to merge the xmlbeans and poi ant builds. I've been
trying for an hour or more and still getting issues.
If the major objection to the com.github.pjfanning:xmlbeans dependency is
that my name is in the groupId, I can request a new groupId from OSS
Sonatype. They require that y
Hi,
we had this discussion already before [1].
- at 1) ... -1, we should get rid of the known errors
- at 2) ... if we get something with apache/poi in its name, I would +1 it. I
still don't get it, why we can't have it as a module in our codebase - keeping
everything apart the maven group id.
Hi -
I think that releasing a package with right XMLbean path in Maven Central might
be best for our users. Finding that they have issues with old XMLbeans might be
subtly difficult. I could be wrong.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Nick Burch wrote:
>
>> On
treff: Re: XMLBeans in 4.0.0 release
+1 for either of those options resulting in 4.0.0 depending on an updated
and fixed XML Beans. I don't care which. An updated attic release is
slightly preferable to me, but if that's troublesome to pull off then a POI
fork is fine.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2
+1 for either of those options resulting in 4.0.0 depending on an updated
and fixed XML Beans. I don't care which. An updated attic release is
slightly preferable to me, but if that's troublesome to pull off then a POI
fork is fine.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018, 00:28 Nick Burch wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, pj.fanning wrote:
I understand the desire to replace XMLBeans altogether but I don't think
we have enough developer time available to do this in the 4.0.0 time
frame.
Given the amount of work that'd take, and a desire for other features and
bugs to be worked on in the mean
y 08, 2018 7:52 AM
To: dev@poi.apache.org
Subject: XMLBeans in 4.0.0 release
Relating to https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59268 : would it be
possible to have a vote on what the XMLBeans solution should be for the
4.0.0 release?
I understand the desire to replace XMLBeans altogether bu
Relating to https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59268 : would it
be possible to have a vote on what the XMLBeans solution should be for the
4.0.0 release?
I understand the desire to replace XMLBeans altogether but I don't think we
have enough developer time available to do this in the 4.
13 matches
Mail list logo
