On 01/12/2014 00:42, Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote:
Hello Benedikt!
I guess I'm being too cautious to commit or work on issues in other
components :)
Don't worry about it. Everything at Commons is CTR (commit-then-review).
The worse thing that can happen is that you have to revert a commit.
It is
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
version would be useful.
The team seemed to discuss moving to slf4j, but he mentioned they were
happy not doing it since the learned about bc breaks within slf4j
versions. In general
Israel,
The sandbox is not released as a jar for licensing reasons IIRC. You have
to check it out of SVN and build it yourself.
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Israel Malachi isra...@ellipsis.co.il
wrote:
Hello all!
I'm writing a program that uses the VFS (2.0) so I could manage SFTP
MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare WRT to
performance and String.format and our own {} support... any thoughts
on that?
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
But it would be
FWIW, I think a new version of CL would be 'fun' if it included support for
Log4j 2...
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare WRT to
performance and String.format and our own {}
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 13:57, Gary Gregory wrote:
MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare WRT to
performance and String.format and our own {} support... any thoughts
on that?
No, didn't think about this yet. I just pass on what I was told without
judgement for now
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 14:31, Gary Gregory wrote:
FWIW, I think a new version of CL would be 'fun' if it included support
for
Log4j 2...
Agreed. :)
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com
wrote:
MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another
On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
version would be useful.
The team seemed to discuss moving to slf4j, but he mentioned they were
happy
Hi, just reading through the list i'll come up with some comments below
Am 01.12.2014 um 18:04 schrieb sebb:
On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a
see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-438
I have the changes at https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/tags/vfs-1.0/vfs-smb
for reference only, it does not get pushed to Maven Central
-D
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
Israel,
The sandbox is not
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 18:04, sebb wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
That aside, I would do the following:
- jdk support for at least 7 (varargs need 5, but MessageFormat 7)
Just saw MessageFormat is even available in jdk 5. So I would
On 1 December 2014 at 18:17, Christian Grobmeier c...@grobmeier.de wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 18:04, sebb wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
That aside, I would do the following:
- jdk support for at least 7 (varargs need 5, but
Hi Christian,
one of those unlikely users of Avalon is the Turbine framework but I can lend a
hand with AvalonLogger :-)
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 01 Dec 2014, at 19:17, Christian Grobmeier c...@grobmeier.de wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 18:04, sebb wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at
On 21 November 2014 at 17:34, ggreg...@apache.org wrote:
Author: ggregory
Date: Fri Nov 21 17:34:41 2014
New Revision: 1640967
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1640967
Log:
Released Apache Commons CSV 1.1.
Modified:
commons/proper/csv/trunk/pom.xml
Modified:
Deletion of the previous release should not happen until the new
release has been announced.
In turn, the announcement should not be sent until at least1 day after
the new release has been published to allow mirrors time to catch up.
On 21 November 2014 at 17:25, ggreg...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:41 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 November 2014 at 17:34, ggreg...@apache.org wrote:
Author: ggregory
Date: Fri Nov 21 17:34:41 2014
New Revision: 1640967
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1640967
Log:
Released Apache Commons CSV 1.1.
Modified:
I'm OK with all that but it should be documented someplace. Yet another
thing that makes our releases a PITA :-(
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:44 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Deletion of the previous release should not happen until the new
release has been announced.
In turn, the
If you want to drive into this, you may want to review the LogMF and LogSF
companions and related discussion in the archives.
The cost of the array construction implicit in a vararg call and the cost of
boxing scalars can dwarf the cost of determining whether to log or not.
Unfortunately
18 matches
Mail list logo
