Jenkins build is back to normal : commons-csv #28

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

Build failed in Jenkins: commons-csv #27

See Changes: [garydgregory] Coveralls badge fix. [garydgregory] Update version in Maven coordinates. [garydgregory] Set parent POM back to 41. [garydgregory] Trying to get Travis CI to pass coverage Jacoco reports to Coveralls. [garydgre

Build failed in Jenkins: commons-csv #26

See Changes: [garydgregory] commons-parent 40 -> 41. [garydgregory] Use Jacoco instead per config file. [garydgregory] GroupId is duplicate of parent groupId. [garydgregory] See if Travis can pick up parent POM SNAPSHOT to validate the pa

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:55:57 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gilles wrote: Hello. Thanks for all the replies. However, it seems that when a project could make use of the flexibility provided by modularization, there are objections to really embrace it: * Some don

Re: [Filter] Better name? (Was: [math] IIR filter library [...])

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Bernd Porr wrote: > Hi Gilles, > > I like the idea of "SigProc". Filter is a bit too narrow especially when > we also include more exoctic processing and/or analysis etc. > I agree. Plain "Filter" is way too vague and this is not a generic filtering library. We

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gilles wrote: > Hello. > > Thanks for all the replies. > However, it seems that when a project could make use of the > flexibility provided by modularization, there are objections > to really embrace it: > * Some don't like a partial release > * Some don't like

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > Hi, Gary, > > > I humbly disagree on your response to Gilles questions. In more detail: > Humility not required, let me have it! ;-) [or let the technical points have it] > > > a. Is it OK if the official release does not contain (5) an

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

Catching up on email... below... On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Gilles wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:01:11 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> Preface: This thread, the questions it contains, as well as other recent >> emails in general feels like the result of the normal learning curve one >> m

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

Hi Jörg. On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:25:09 +0100, Jörg Schaible wrote: Gilles wrote: Hi. The "Commons RNG" component (in the "Apache Commons" sense), consists of the following modules (in the "maven" sense) that provide Java code: (1) commons-rng-client-api (2) commons-rng-core (3) commons-r

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

Hello. Thanks for all the replies. However, it seems that when a project could make use of the flexibility provided by modularization, there are objections to really embrace it: * Some don't like a partial release * Some don't like different version numbers * Some don't like releasing codes at

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

Gilles wrote: > Hi. > > The "Commons RNG" component (in the "Apache Commons" sense), > consists of the following modules (in the "maven" sense) that > provide Java code: > (1) commons-rng-client-api > (2) commons-rng-core > (3) commons-rng-simple > (4) commons-rng-sampling > (5) commons

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

Hi, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > I think I'll tend towards agreeing with Jochen here, rather get half the > modules out early than fight ourselves with versioning workarounds if the > rest of the modules are not ready for prime time. > > However I see concerns of selective "part releases" and re

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

I think I'll tend towards agreeing with Jochen here, rather get half the modules out early than fight ourselves with versioning workarounds if the rest of the modules are not ready for prime time. However I see concerns of selective "part releases" and reproducible builds, so I would do this using

Re: [RNG][ALL] Official vs "courtesy" code ?

Hi, Gary, I humbly disagree on your response to Gilles questions. In more detail: a. Is it OK if the official release does not contain (5) and (6)? [Rationale is that it would allow to make changes without bothering about compatibility with _unintended_ uses.] A release is a release, bec

[GitHub] commons-fileupload pull request #5: Update DiskFileItem.java: Avoiding NPE w...

GitHub user OleHornischer opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-fileupload/pull/5 Update DiskFileItem.java: Avoiding NPE when not explicitely initializ… …ing the outputstream When accessing e.g. getSize() on a DiskFileItem before having called getOutp