[ANNOUNCE] Apache Commons Release Plugin 1.0 Released

[This announcement is only going to the dev list.] The Apache Commons Release Plugin team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Commons Release Plugin 1.0. The Apache Commons Release Plugin is a collection of Java based Maven mojos for Apache Commons Release process. These mojos are

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

For an internal component like this one and commons-parent, I feel that announcing on @dev is plenty. Users don't care and the Apache announce list is not appropriate IMO. Gary On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote: > Pardon, I’ve been vague. I meant to ask

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

The vote passes with the following +1 votes in order of appearance: - Bruno P. Kinoshita, - Stian Soiland-Reyes, and - Rob Tompkins I will perform the requisite promotion activities. Many thanks to all of those that weighed in on this and the ideas for improvements that can be made to the

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

Here’s my +1. > On Jan 10, 2018, at 9:50 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote: > > Hello all, > > This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache commons-release-plugin 1.0 (from RC1). > > Tag name: > commons-release-plugin-1.0-RC1 (signature can be checked from git using > 'git tag -v') > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

Pardon, I’ve been vague. I meant to ask about the release announcement. Typically we send those up to annou...@apache.org for our top level components. But, the prescient for commons-parent seems to be to only email the announcement to our dev list. Which do you think I should do? > On Jan 16,

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

Right: "Once a vote is successful, post a [RESULT] Release Foo 1.2 email to *dev@commons.apache.org * as a reply to the original posting. This email should contain a summary of the voters/votes that were cast, eg..." from http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

I’ll do the tally tonight (UTC-5). Should the announce only go to the dev list? > On Jan 16, 2018, at 2:40 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I think you have enough VOTEs from the PMC ATM. Tally? > > Gary > >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Otto Fowler

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

I think you have enough VOTEs from the PMC ATM. Tally? Gary On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Otto Fowler wrote: > Do you have a page with the verification steps and requirements? > > > On January 16, 2018 at 11:59:34, Rob Tompkins (chtom...@gmail.com) wrote: > >

Re: [All] Source compatibility policy

Am 16.01.2018 um 00:06 schrieb Gary Gregory: For me, breaking source compatibility should be limited to what can be adjusted to in my sources very easily. I would also consider whether the breaks are for a cosmetic reasons for an actual bug fix. I would probably pass on cosmetic breaks within

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

Do you have a page with the verification steps and requirements? On January 16, 2018 at 11:59:34, Rob Tompkins (chtom...@gmail.com) wrote: Curious if anyone else wants to weigh in? > On Jan 16, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > > +1 (Binding) > > (While I might

Re: Fwd: [jira] [Created] (COMDEV-248) add /dist/ health issues

Hi Gilles, On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Gilles wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:35:35 +0100, Sergio Fernández wrote: > >> From ComDev, just discovered checker.a.o, and got into the following >> report >> with problems: >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

Curious if anyone else wants to weigh in? > On Jan 16, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > > +1 (Binding) > > (While I might disagree in principle about removing source .tar.gz and > .zip from Maven repo, I say let's get the plugin released and find > more bugs

Re: [Statistics] Distributions

Just read the Maven description bingo!!! On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Eric Barnhill wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Bill Igoe wrote: > > > > > Thinking aloud. 'Math' is of course a broad subject and your goal of a > > solid all

Re: [Statistics] Distributions

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Bill Igoe wrote: > > Thinking aloud. 'Math' is of course a broad subject and your goal of a > solid all encompassing package is admirable. > I am not sure that is the goal of the projects here actually. Commons is more about small re-usable

Re: [Statistics] Distributions

Giles, Seems reasonable. Thinking aloud. 'Math' is of course a broad subject and your goal of a solid all encompassing package is admirable. Managing a lot of jars or packages is a pain for the none java expert. In thinking on the way python, R and other packages solves the 'issue' is by

Re: [Statistics] Language level

I think the de facto rule for all new components should be the current JDK LTS. So +1 for Java 8. On Jan 15, 2018 15:01, "Gilles" wrote: > Hi > > Which should we target for that component? > IOW, has someone a case for less than Java 8? > > Gilles > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Release Plugin 1.0 base on RC1

+1 (Binding) (While I might disagree in principle about removing source .tar.gz and .zip from Maven repo, I say let's get the plugin released and find more bugs later! :) ) Checked: +1 gpg signatures +1 sha1, md5 +1 source zip vs tar.gz +1 binary zip vs tar.gz +1 source vs git (for some reason

[GitHub] commons-dbutils issue #3: Fixes a thread safety problem introduced by DBUTIL...

Github user objectboy2016 commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/commons-dbutils/pull/3 **Why not design a named parameter** such as: string sql="select * from user where name=:name"; ... runquery.addParameter("name","paul"); So