On 4/20/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think our priorities should be:
* Breathe activity back into cli - which means getting passed the
impasse it has arrived at by dumping cli-1.0 support from the 2.0 jar.
* Support old cli 1.0 users with a minor bugfix version, 1.0.1.
* Consi
On 4/19/06, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/04/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another question - why keep the Avalon logger? (Presuming we were to
> > release cli 2.0 and an easier cli 1.1). What's its raison d'etre?
>
> [It's not a logger ...]
Sure, sure. (I was on crac
On 19/04/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:36:49AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi Henri,
> > >
> > > > What do you think? Is the cli2 package clearly superior to the cli[1]
> > > > package?
>
Henri Yandell wrote:
Seems to be pretty overwhelmingly in favour of cli2 - good to hear
that people are using it and are happy.
Another option is to split the two packages up and keep cli1 on a
branch. Then we can do a cli1.1 release, but for a lot of the bugs
we'll just be saying "Sorry, move t
On 4/19/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:36:49AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Henri,
> >
> > > What do you think? Is the cli2 package clearly superior to the cli[1]
> > > package?
>
> I think so. There doesn't seem to be any advantage to cli[1], c
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:36:49AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Henri,
>
> > What do you think? Is the cli2 package clearly superior to the cli[1]
> > package?
I think so. There doesn't seem to be any advantage to cli[1], cli2 is better
designed and the avalon code appears to be simpler
Hi Henri,
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2006 2:47 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [cli] [patch] build bug
>
(snip)
> What do you think? Is the cli2 package clearly
On 18/04/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/18/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:46:24PM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > > Might I suggest you create a Bugzilla patch and then attach the files to
> > > it?
> > > On 13/04/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL
On 4/18/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:46:24PM +0100, sebb wrote:
> > Might I suggest you create a Bugzilla patch and then attach the files to it?
> > On 13/04/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just tried entering this in bu
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:46:24PM +0100, sebb wrote:
> Might I suggest you create a Bugzilla patch and then attach the files to it?
> On 13/04/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have just tried entering this in bugzilla but the post_bug.cgi was
> > 404ing!
> >
I tried this ag
Might I suggest you create a Bugzilla patch and then attach the files to it?
Unless anyone deals with the patches in the near future, they are
likely to get lost amongst all the rest.
It's also a lot easier when applying patches to refer to a Bugzilla
issue in the commit messages.
S.
On 13/04/06
Hi,
I have just tried entering this in bugzilla but the post_bug.cgi was
404ing!
When running "ant test" org.apache.commons.cli2.resource.ResourceHelperTest was
failing as it needs a .properties file copying from src/test to
target/test-classes/
I have created a patch to build.xml (attached) whi
12 matches
Mail list logo
