The reflection problem in 1.6 is obscure, but also not going to have a simple workaround when it happens. The macro context problem is easy to workaround but will be more common and annoying. Neither is terribly severe, but my time is getting increasingly precious as the new year approaches, and i can less afford to be working on Velocity. I definitely can rebuild the release, but i absolutely do not consider a missing license header on a test case worth the time and effort. There is no realistic or practical reason that the lack of that header will be problematic for anyone. Even in theory, it is a stretch to see a show-stopping problem with this.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen <[email protected]> wrote: > Then I missed it back then, which is my mistake. > > Bad timng: Yes, probably, is the problem in 1.6 so severe that it does > not allow rebuilding the tarballs? > > I am willing to lift it to a 0 if there are pressing reasons. However, > it definitely should be fixed in SVN. > > Ciao > Henning > > > > Nathan Bubna schrieb: >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sorry, -1 due to this: >>> >>> !????? ./src/test/org/apache/velocity/test/StrictReferenceTestCase.java >> >> looks like it was that way when you ran RAT on 1.6 and gave that a +1. >> what gives? this is lousy timing; is this really worth the veto? >> >>> from the rat report. Please fix the license and prepare a new build. >>> >>> Ciao >>> Henning >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 07:38 -0800, Nathan Bubna wrote: >>>> Ok, there were no complaints about the latest 1.6.1 test build, so it >>>> is time to vote: >>>> >>>> The test build candidate for release is still available here: >>>> http://people.apache.org/~nbubna/velocity/engine/1.6.1/ >>>> >>>> Please vote regarding your support for releasing this test build as >>>> Velocity Engine 1.6.1: >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 Let's do it >>>> [ ] +0 Have fun; i don't care. >>>> [ ] -0 Not sure about this, but i won't stop you. >>>> [ ] -1 No, because __________________ >>>> >>>> The voting period is typically 72 hours, putting its close time as >>>> roughly 7am PST on Mon, Dec 15th. Vote early and vote often! :) >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Nathan Bubna <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> if you didn't notice, a vararg method reflection bug (VELOCITY-651) >>>>> was found shortly after we got 1.6 released. it is now fixed, and i >>>>> think we need to do a bug fix release for it. it's not the sort of >>>>> thing that should wait around for a 1.7 release. so, here's a test >>>>> build for 1.6.1. >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~nbubna/velocity/engine/1.6.1/ >>>>> >>>>> please give it a look and a test. i'll probably call for a vote on >>>>> Tuesday. i'm aiming for a Fri (12/12) release. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> nathan >>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> -- >>> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Java, J2EE, Linux >>> Mail: [email protected] -- Consultant, Architect, Developer >>> Web: http://henning.schmiedehausen.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> > > > -- > Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [email protected] > > "Save the cheerleader. Save the world." > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
