2013/3/5 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 5 March 2013 00:10, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
2013/3/5 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 4 March 2013 20:57, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
2013/3/4 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
I just fixed the Digester download page by adding
download_digester.cgi to
the current download_*.xml contains the version in a lot of places.
What about using a property in the pom:
currentReleasedVersionx.x.x./currentReleasedVersion
moving the download_*.xml to download_*.xml.vm and replace hard coded
version with ${currentReleasedVersion}.
That will be only one place
2013/3/3 Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org
2013/3/2 Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
On 03/02/2013 07:33 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
2013/3/2 t...@apache.org
Author: tn
Date: Sat Mar 2 18:12:46 2013
New Revision: 1451914
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1451914
Log:
On 5 March 2013 08:38, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
the current download_*.xml contains the version in a lot of places.
What about using a property in the pom:
currentReleasedVersionx.x.x./currentReleasedVersion
moving the download_*.xml to download_*.xml.vm and replace hard coded
Hi all guys,
since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
recently involved other commons component.
Any objection?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
Dear all!
I've finished my patch for 2Gb+ uploads.
Since I don't use portlets, it needs some additional fix for portlets (it's
not broken, just returns -1 as the total size of the file, when it's over
2Gb.
Gergo
see
Hi Gergo,
I've finished my patch for 2Gb+ uploads.
Since I don't use portlets, it needs some additional fix for portlets (it's
not broken, just returns -1 as the total size of the file, when it's over
2Gb.
Gergo
very good, thanks, since I am doing some work on [fileupload], I am
reviewing
Hi again Gergo,
patch looks OK to me, the problem we would have ATM is the backward
compatibility, since there methods signature change.
Is there anybody that can suggest how to handle that situation?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
+1... jdk1.3...
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
On 5 March 2013 15:46, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Hi again Gergo,
patch looks OK to me, the problem we would have ATM is the backward
compatibility, since there methods signature change.
Is there anybody that can suggest how to handle that situation?
Create new methods
On 5 March 2013 08:34, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
2013/3/5 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 5 March 2013 00:10, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
2013/3/5 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 4 March 2013 20:57, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
2013/3/4 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
I just fixed the
+1. Why not Java 6 since 5 is mostly dead.
Gary
On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:05, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all guys,
since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
recently involved other commons component.
Any objection?
TIA,
-Simo
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version: Currently
the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the bundle/library version. If
you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure the API export is *not* updated
to 2.0, otherwise consumers in OSGi
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
the API export is *not*
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
bundle/library
On 5 March 2013 18:57, KONTRA, Gergely pihent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API
Hallo Jörg!
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
the API export is *not* updated to 2.0, otherwise consumers
On 5 March 2013 15:34, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
Is the generics
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
Is the
Hi,
while trying to upload the RC1 artifact to Nexus, I get the following error:
Artifact upload failed.
Cannot find a matching staging profile!
I guess it is because of the groupId: commons-logging
There is only a profile for org.apache.commons
As its only a bugfix release, we should not
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.orgwrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of
On 5 March 2013 19:57, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
though it is a bit of a jump.
Is the addition of generics sufficiently significant?
what you said makes perfectly sense, 2.0.0
On 03/05/2013 09:34 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
I think that requires an INFRA ticket IIRC.
ok, created INFRA-5942.
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Am 05.03.2013 um 21:56 schrieb Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org:
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
though it is a bit of a jump.
Is the addition of
I'm a bit short on time right now. I'll try to have another look on this, this
weekend.
Benedikt
Send from my mobile device
Am 04.03.2013 um 10:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org:
$Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
+1
Are you okay with this
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
@author tags are no longer used, because authors are documented in pom.xml.
I don't know the history of BeanUtils so I'm asking if there are any
arguments against moving authors from source code files to pom.xml.
Hi
FYI it seems @author is discouraged:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-jmeter-dev/200402.mbox/%3c4039f65e.7020...@atg.com%3E
Le 5 mars 2013 22:46, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com a
écrit :
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to call a vote for releasing Commons Logging 1.1.2 based on RC1.
This release candidate has the following changes compared to 1.1.1
(copied from the release notes):
Fixed Bugs:
o LOGGING-124: The jar manifest now contains proper OSGi-related
metadata information.
o LOGGING-144:
On 5 March 2013 20:56, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
though it is a bit of a jump.
Is the addition of generics
Hi,
I was checking out what should be solved before releasing a new
version and in my opinion most of PMD [1] errors can be omitted, maybe
These nested if statements could be combined should be resolved, but
the rest I don't see a point instead of just satisfying PMD itself.
Some of the Findbugs
Why not 1.3 ?
Or at least wait until you see how much is changed before deciding
whether it deserves a point release or a minor release bump.
nice idea, let's keep 1.2.3 until something drives us on increasing
the minor version
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
Thanks for your comments. I have create BEANUTILS-431 [1]. Since Craig
McClanahan doesn't seem to follow the ML I will contact him directly to be
sure he is okay with this change.
Benedikt
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-431
2013/3/5 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
34 matches
Mail list logo
