It looks like the Maven SCM plugin wants your password. Did you
provide it on the command line?
Gary
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:33 AM Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 7 mars 2024 à 15:20, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> >
> > Please see https://commons.apache.org/site-publish.html
>
> Thanks.
>
This vote passes with the following +1 votes:
- David Handermann (non-binding)
- Rob Tompkins (binding)
- Melloware Inc (non-binding)
- Gary Gregory (binding)
- Bruno Kinoshita (binding)
Thank you all for taking the time to review this release candidate.
Gary
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:20 PM
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:20 PM Bruno Kinoshita wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Apache Maven 3.8.5 (3599d3414f046de2324203b78ddcf9b5e4388aa0)
> Maven home: /opt/apache-maven-3.8.5
> Java version: 17.0.10, vendor: Private Build, runtime:
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-17-openjdk-amd64
> Default locale: en_US, platform
+1
Apache Maven 3.8.5 (3599d3414f046de2324203b78ddcf9b5e4388aa0)
Maven home: /opt/apache-maven-3.8.5
Java version: 17.0.10, vendor: Private Build, runtime:
/usr/lib/jvm/java-17-openjdk-amd64
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux", version: "5.15.0-97-generic", arch:
Tbh, I was really surprised to find out that in Java8 the code did indeed also
introspect internal fields of all those java.util.* foundation classes. It's
imo pure luck that it did work so well for a decade for anything Set, List,
Map, etc.
Working on a patch with all those discussed changes.
The next question is whether any of this should be mentioned/recorded in
the Javadoc or at least in a code comment.
Gary
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024, 5:24 AM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> Hi Gary!
>
> Yes, this would be really slow. Plus after further thinking about it, I
> guess it doesn't add anything over
Hi Daniel!
Yes, you are right. As written in my mail to Gary: I think it would be enough
for now if we'd come to the same results as before the module privacy
restrictions. If we do better later on it is an optional bonus.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 07.03.2024 um 15:39 schrieb Daniel Watson :
>
>
Hi Gary!
Yes, this would be really slow. Plus after further thinking about it, I guess
it doesn't add anything over the required existing behaviour imo. Until now
reflectionEquals did simply dig into the Class.getDeclaredFields of those
java.util.* classes. So it only did compare the EXAKT
