[ANN] Apache Commons Compress 1.12 Released

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Apache Commons Team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Commons Compress 1.12. Compress 1.12 adds support for the Snappy dialect used in iWork archives and fixes bugs in the 7z, zip, tar and cpio packages. Compress 1.12 is the first

Jenkins build is back to normal : Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.8 #41

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Jenkins build is back to normal : Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.8 » Apache Commons Crypto #41

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Jenkins build is back to normal : Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 #73

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Jenkins build is back to normal : Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 » Apache Commons Crypto #73

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 » Apache Commons Crypto #72

For some reason, the build is not picking up the latest from Git... Trying again... Gary On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Apache Jenkins Server < jenk...@builds.apache.org> wrote: > See < > https://builds.apache.org/job/Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7/org.apache.commons$commons-crypto/72/ > > > >

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 » Apache Commons Crypto #72

See -- Established TCP socket on 51668 maven3-agent.jar already up to date maven3-interceptor.jar already up to date maven3-interceptor-commons.jar already up to

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 » Apache Commons Crypto #72

See -- Established TCP socket on 51668 maven3-agent.jar already up to date maven3-interceptor.jar already up to date maven3-interceptor-commons.jar already up to

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 #71

See Changes: [sebb] CRYPTO-73 Create example Java source code [sebb] Simplify [ggregory] The declared exception GeneralSecurityException is not actually thrown. [ggregory] Statement unnecessarily nested within else clause.

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.7 » Apache Commons Crypto #71

See -- Established TCP socket on 48485 maven3-agent.jar already up to date maven3-interceptor.jar already up to date maven3-interceptor-commons.jar already up to

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.8 » Apache Commons Crypto #40

See Changes: [sebb] CRYPTO-73 Create example Java source code [sebb] Simplify [ggregory] The declared exception GeneralSecurityException is not actually thrown. [ggregory] Statement

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-CRYPTO-JDK1.8 #40

See Changes: [sebb] CRYPTO-73 Create example Java source code [sebb] Simplify [ggregory] The declared exception GeneralSecurityException is not actually thrown. [ggregory] Statement unnecessarily nested within else clause.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um >> 21:04 Uhr: >> >> > [ Ducking behind a stack of

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6

Thanks to sebb's suggestion of using shade I was able to test RC6. Unfortunately, I am unable to vote as rev 1747124 breaks Daikon. (We are required to build with -Werror). This change is not in the active tree so that's good. The problem is that

[GitHub] commons-cli pull request #6: CLI-266: HelpFormatter with comparator null now...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/commons-cli/pull/6 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Compress #121

See Changes: [bodewig] prepare RC1 of Commons Compress 1.12 [bodewig] Bump to next development version -- [...truncated 101 lines...] Tests run: 12, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Compress » Apache Commons Compress #121

See Changes: [bodewig] prepare RC1 of Commons Compress 1.12 [bodewig] Bump to next development version -- [...truncated 65 lines...]

[GitHub] commons-cli pull request #6: CLI-266: HelpFormatter with comparator null now...

GitHub user bond- opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-cli/pull/6 CLI-266: HelpFormatter with comparator null now displays in the inserted order You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

[VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Hello. This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component. This vote is dedicated to the following functionality: Representation of rational numbers The concerned code is the contents of the following

[VOTE] New component: Random number generators

Hello. This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component. This vote is dedicated to the following functionality: Uniform (pseudo-)random number generators The concerned code is the contents of the following

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hi, > > Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um > 21:04 Uhr: > > > [ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes > ;-) > > ] > > > > It only took about 20

[VOTE] New component: Complex numbers

Hello. This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component. This vote is dedicated to the following functionality: Representation of complex and quaternion numbers, and related algorithms (like FFT) The

[VOTE] New component: Standard math functions

Hello. This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component. This vote is dedicated to the following functionality: Standard mathematical functions (either missing from "java.lang.Math", or faster or more

Re: [JCS] Failing Tests in JCS Core

Hi, Romain Manni-Bucau schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um 11:06 Uhr: > we would check there is a local address, if not then the test would be > skipped on that jenkins instance > I'm indifferent. I agree with Thomas, that this may be out of scope for the tests anyway. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6

Hi, Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um 21:04 Uhr: > [ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes ;-) > ] > It only took about 20 minutes to create RC6, so no tomatoes ;-) > > Pardon me for asking since we've been talking about BC

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6

[ Ducking behind a stack of crates for the incoming flight of tomatoes ;-) ] Pardon me for asking since we've been talking about BC forever, but, while we are not 100% BC and we explain that well, why bother making BC-breaking changes that appear to be in the non-essential clean up category for

[RESULT] Release Compress 1.12 based on RC2

Hi all with binding +1s by Benedikt Ritter, Gary Gregory, Oliver Heger and my own implicit one the vote has passed. I'll publish the artifacts and wait with updating the site and sending the announcement until tomorrow morning (UTC). Thanks to all who took the time to review the release

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:30:13 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Gilles wrote: Hello. On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

Hello. On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:52:40 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Gilles wrote: Mostly yes, but some utilities are used by packages that would be good components (e.g. "o.a.c.m.distribution"). For example, an efficient and

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

On 06/21/2016 08:07 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: Maybe. That could depend on whether there is anyone at Commons that would want to participate in the component. Another option is to follow the pattern used by

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Gilles wrote: > > Hello. > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Jochen, >> >> Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: >>>

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > >> Maybe. That could depend on whether there is anyone at Commons that would >> want to participate in the component. Another option is to follow the >> pattern used by

Re: [VOTE] Release Compress 1.12 based on RC2

On 2016-06-19, Gary Gregory wrote: > Release notes typo: "Commons Compress 1.12 is the first version to require > Java6 at runtime." > "Java6" -> "Java 6" Yep, will fix it in the announce mail and when I re-create the site. > TODO: > On

Re: [ALL] Need help with contributing for first time

Welcome Suresh On 2016-06-20, Suresh Sarda wrote: > I am new to apache commons and want to contribute to the library. I > tried to search for issues in commons-lang but all the issues were > quite old. I need help on which project to contribute or what task to > take. Apart from the advice

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

Hello. On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own component in Commons, these packages

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Gilles wrote: > Mostly yes, but some utilities are used by packages that would > be good components (e.g. "o.a.c.m.distribution"). For example, > an efficient and robust root solver ("BrentSolver"). > The analysis library is

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Maybe. That could depend on whether there is anyone at Commons that would > want to participate in the component. Another option is to follow the pattern > used by httpclient. I believe they took the last version

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 12:58 AM, Jörg Schaible > wrote: > > Hi Jochen, > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >> >>> That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay

CVE-2016-3092: Apache Commons Fileupload information disclosure vulnerability

CVE-2016-3092: Apache Commons Fileupload information disclosure vulnerability Severity: Moderate Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Apache Commons Fileupload 1.3 to 1.3.1 Apache Commons Fileupload 1.2 to 1.2.2 The unsupported Apache Commons Fileupload 1.0.x, and 1.1.x may

Re: [JCS] Failing Tests in JCS Core

we would check there is a local address, if not then the test would be skipped on that jenkins instance Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Wordpress Blog | Github

Re: [JCS] Failing Tests in JCS Core

Romain Manni-Bucau schrieb am Mo., 20. Juni 2016 um 22:50 Uhr: > JUnit has Assume which can allow to keep the test, wouldn't it be better? > What would be the condition of the assume call? > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible > wrote: > >> That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own >> component in Commons, these packages have to be identified. > > Whoever would support such a

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Eric Barnhill wrote: > I think I made a respectable case for such a split in my thread titled > apache,commons,math . Perhaps you could identify some points in that post > that you disagree with? That's what others did. As I wrote: I am

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

I think I made a respectable case for such a split in my thread titled apache,commons,math . Perhaps you could identify some points in that post that you disagree with? That's what others did. On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > > > Whoever would

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own > component in Commons, these packages have to be identified. Whoever would support such a lunacy? Either CM moves entirely, or not at all.

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:31:23 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote: >>> >>> Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons >>> component, and more sophisticated spin-out components, around which we >>> might develop a new Math TLP or incubator

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:31:23 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote: >> >> Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons >> component, and more sophisticated spin-out components, around which we >> might develop a new Math TLP or incubator project in which components of >> the

Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like

Hi Eric and Gilles, Gilles wrote: [snip] > Here is a list of usage count of CM packages (Github search[1]): > o.a.c.math3.analysis 2 > o.a.c.math3.distribution 39 > o.a.c.math3.exception 3 > o.a.c.math3.linear 10 > o.a.c.math3.primes1 > o.a.c.math3.random

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons BCEL 6.0 based on RC6

Hi Sebb, sebb wrote: > On 21 June 2016 at 00:14, Mark Roberts wrote: >> Sorry - I'm replying to my own post. Is there any chance that there is a >> revision point in the active tree that corresponds exactly to RC6 but >> without the path changes? I could do some