On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
Hi Thomas
A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
old Ant build if we want to.
One thing that I'd like to do is to restructure the source code
On 2013-01-15 09:56, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Basically
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
Hi Thomas
A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
old Ant
On 2013-01-15 19:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
Hi Thomas
A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
same output as the Ant build. The should
Java 5 or 6 is fine with me as a new req. This is a new version. No one is
forced to upgrade. If a volunteer wants to do the work, that's fine with me.
Gary
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On 2013-01-15 19:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15,
On 01/15/2013 07:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
Hi Thomas
A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
old Ant build if we want to.
I think
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm -1 on this change. I don't see any reason to do it. We don't need
features from a more recent Java version in commons-logging. As others
have said: most users of commons-logging are old and older apps.
In
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
* update to Java 5
+1, because it also means that we can simplify the code using the stuff from
the
2013/1/15 Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
On 01/15/2013 07:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
Hi Thomas
A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
* update to Java 5
* comply to default maven structure
* update to Junit 4
* fix the open issues wrt thread safety
* replace WeakHashtable with a
Sounds good to me.
If Java 6 helps in any way, I would be OK with using it.
Gary
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I
On 01/12/2013 03:34 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Sounds good to me.
If Java 6 helps in any way, I would be OK with using it.
Well, I wanted to be conservative, but Java 6 is also fine for me if
nobody objects.
Thomas
-
To
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
* update to Java 5
* comply to default maven structure
*
On 01/12/2013 05:37 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
* update to
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2013 05:37 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
Or log4j 2 for that matter?
Gary
On Jan 12, 2013, at 14:29, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just
On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
use for old and older applications.
That said, I just
18 matches
Mail list logo
