Re: [jexl] Migration to Git

On 4 February 2018 at 00:02, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 04/02/2018 à 00:49, sebb a écrit : > >> That should be: >> >> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-jexl.git > > Yes sorry, but note that this URL can't be used with "git clone", the > clone URL is: > >

Re: [jexl] Migration to Git

Le 04/02/2018 à 00:49, sebb a écrit : > That should be: > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-jexl.git Yes sorry, but note that this URL can't be used with "git clone", the clone URL is: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-jexl.git > Won't that break old references?

Re: [jexl] Migration to Git

On 3 February 2018 at 23:52, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 04/02/2018 à 00:46, Gilles a écrit : > >> Link returns: >> ---CUT--- >> XML Parsing Error: junk after document element Location: >> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/commons-jexl.git Line Number 33, Column 8: >> >> ---^

Re: [jexl] Migration to Git

Le 04/02/2018 à 00:46, Gilles a écrit : > Link returns: > ---CUT--- > XML Parsing Error: junk after document element Location: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/commons-jexl.git Line Number 33, Column 8: > > ---^ > ---CUT--- Oops it's https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-jexl.git

Re: [jexl] Migration to Git

On 3 February 2018 at 23:37, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm pleased to announce that JEXL has moved to Git. This is the first > Commons component using the new gitbox.apache.org service, so the URL is > slightly different from the others : > >

Re: [jexl] Migration to Git

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 00:37:49 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi all, I'm pleased to announce that JEXL has moved to Git. This is the first Commons component using the new gitbox.apache.org service, so the URL is slightly different from the others :

[jexl] Migration to Git

Hi all, I'm pleased to announce that JEXL has moved to Git. This is the first Commons component using the new gitbox.apache.org service, so the URL is slightly different from the others : https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/commons-jexl.git The migration was also the opportunity to rename the

Re: [io] New filevisitor package

On Feb 3, 2018 13:07, "Jochen Wiedmann" wrote: My impression is, that you are referring to Files.walkFileTree? Yep. Gary Jochen On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I propose a new package for [IO]:

Re: [io] New filevisitor package

My impression is, that you are referring to Files.walkFileTree? Jochen On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I propose a new package for [IO]: org.apache.commons.io.filevisitor. > > This package will implementations of FileVisitor just like

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

Hi, build works fine with Java 1.7 and 1.8 on Windows 10. When building the site I get the same error as mentioned by sebb. Artifacts and site look good. +1 Oliver Am 02.02.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Stefan Bodewig: > As indicated I think it is time to get Compress 1.16 out. > > Compress 1.16 RC1

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

On 2018-02-03, sebb wrote: > On 3 February 2018 at 12:26, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On 2018-02-03, sebb wrote: >>> I get the following failure with 'mvn clean site' using >> this is because japicmp requires the jar to be built, see the bottom of >> BUILDING.md > CP-42 was

Re: Downloading snapshot parents

On 3 February 2018 at 14:32, Gilles wrote: > Hi. > > So, IIUC, this is only needed for testing modifications to CP. Yes, as previously noted. See below (*) > Thanks for the explanation, > Gilles > > On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:23:51 +, sebb wrote: >> >> On 3

Re: Downloading snapshot parents

Hi. So, IIUC, this is only needed for testing modifications to CP. Thanks for the explanation, Gilles On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:23:51 +, sebb wrote: On 3 February 2018 at 14:00, Gilles wrote: On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:25:25 +, sebb wrote: ... Note that you

Downloading snapshot parents (was: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1)

On 3 February 2018 at 14:00, Gilles wrote: > On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:25:25 +, sebb wrote: ... >> Note that you have to define the snapshots repo locally if you want to >> reference a snapshot parent. >> This is because the ASF snapshot repo is not known by Maven.

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 13:25:25 +, sebb wrote: On 3 February 2018 at 12:26, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2018-02-03, sebb wrote: I get the following failure with 'mvn clean site' using this is because japicmp requires the jar to be built, see the bottom of BUILDING.md

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

On 3 February 2018 at 12:26, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2018-02-03, sebb wrote: > >> I get the following failure with 'mvn clean site' using > > this is because japicmp requires the jar to be built, see the bottom of > BUILDING.md CP-42 was supposed to fix this by setting

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

On 2018-02-03, sebb wrote: > I get the following failure with 'mvn clean site' using this is because japicmp requires the jar to be built, see the bottom of BUILDING.md > mvn package site -Pjacoco Stefan - To unsubscribe,

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

The japicmp error is a bug in CP. The tag does not define the value as true; instead it is ignored. The pom needs to provide an explicit value. Also the config needs to be added to the report section instead (or possibly as well to allow for cli use) because mvn site reports don't use the build

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

I get the following failure with 'mvn clean site' using Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5; 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00) Maven home: /opt/apache-maven-3.3.9 Java version: 1.8.0_151, vendor: Oracle Corporation Java home:

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.16 based on RC1

On 2018-02-02, Gary Gregory wrote: > " LZ77Compressor.Block that I consider OK as the class is only used > internally and nobody is supposed to create subclasses outside of > Commons Compress." > Can you Javadoc this for future releases then? Will do. > Did you consider using Rob's new Commons