Thanks
on second thought I'd prefer to decouple the two releases (ant and
AntUnit) and will prepare RCs for them independently.
Stefan
On 2018-06-18, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> Me too.
> Gintas
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 11:19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> I am willing to test and vote on an
Me too.
Gintas
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 11:19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> I am willing to test and vote on an AntUnit release.
>
> -Jaikiran
>
>
> On 18/06/18 12:45 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > OK, then I'll revert the antunit change so the source release ships with
> > a released version of it and
I am willing to test and vote on an AntUnit release.
-Jaikiran
On 18/06/18 12:45 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
OK, then I'll revert the antunit change so the source release ships with
a released version of it and prepare release candidates sometime the
coming days.
The alternative would be to
OK, then I'll revert the antunit change so the source release ships with
a released version of it and prepare release candidates sometime the
coming days.
The alternative would be to cut an AntUnit release first which also
works for me if enough people are willing to vote on that.
Stefan
+1. I don't have anything in a state that I can push to either of these
branches, in the immediate future.
-Jaikiran
On 16/06/18 9:38 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi all
given https://dev.snyk.io/research/zip-slip-vulnerability lists Ant
1.9.12 as a release fixing a security problem it might
Den lör 16 juni 2018 kl 18:08 skrev Stefan Bodewig :
> Hi all
>
> given https://dev.snyk.io/research/zip-slip-vulnerability lists Ant
> 1.9.12 as a release fixing a security problem it might be a good idea to
> actually release 1.9.12 :-)
>
> AFAICS there is no unfinished work in either branch,
Hi all
given https://dev.snyk.io/research/zip-slip-vulnerability lists Ant
1.9.12 as a release fixing a security problem it might be a good idea to
actually release 1.9.12 :-)
AFAICS there is no unfinished work in either branch, but I may be
wrong. I am aware there ar enhancement requests around
