Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

+1 to -beta1 Bruno On Tuesday, 31 March 2020, 3:14:37 am NZDT, Gary Gregory wrote: Hi All: I would like to update https://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html to read: "Beta releases are denoted by adding "-beta" after the release number. For example, if the current release

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Hi. Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen a écrit : > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now. > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've agreed to go with > "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do with the > existing release branch

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now. I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've agreed to go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably

Re: [Numbers] Local build failing due to Checstyle violations

I got it set up faster than I thought. I pushed a fix to master and I'll pull it into the next RC. Let me know if it works for you or not. -Matt From: Matt Juntunen Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:23 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [Numbers] Local

Re: [Numbers] Local build failing due to Checstyle violations

I bet it's a Windows path thing. The file length suppression rule, for example, uses the regex ".*/Complex(Test)?.java", which would not match Windows-style paths. We need to use separator-agnostic regexes like ".*[/\\]Complex(Test)?.java". I don't have a Windows dev environment handy to

Re: [Numbers] Local build failing due to Checstyle violations

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:37 PM Matt Juntunen wrote: > That is interesting. I've never run into this. There are explicit > suppressions for those checks in > src/main/resources/checkstyle/checkstyle-suppressions.xml. Do you have any > more details? What mvn command are you running? >

Re: [LANG][TEXT] What belongs where.

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > The new ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1400 brings up > for me the question of where new code belongs: In Apache Commons Lang or > Apache Commons Text. > > It would be nice to formulate some text to guide contributors

Re: [Numbers] Local build failing due to Checstyle violations

That is interesting. I've never run into this. There are explicit suppressions for those checks in src/main/resources/checkstyle/checkstyle-suppressions.xml. Do you have any more details? What mvn command are you running? -Matt From: Gary Gregory Sent: Monday,

[LANG][TEXT] What belongs where.

The new ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1400 brings up for me the question of where new code belongs: In Apache Commons Lang or Apache Commons Text. It would be nice to formulate some text to guide contributors as to what kind of code belongs where. The vague definition I state

[Numbers] Local build failing due to Checstyle violations

[INFO] --- maven-checkstyle-plugin:3.1.0:check (default) @ commons-numbers-complex --- [INFO] There are 3 errors reported by Checkstyle 8.29 with C:\git\commons-numbers\commons-numbers-complex/../src/main/resources/checkstyle/checkstyle.xml ruleset. [ERROR]

Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:05 PM Xeno Amess wrote: > I prefer 3.0-rc1 > This is too confusing since we already use the RC naming for release candidate in VOTEs. Gary > but 3.0-beta1 sounds far better than 3.0-B1 > > XenoAmess > > > From: Gilles Sadowski >

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 17:24, Alex Herbert wrote: > > > On 30/03/2020 16:30, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 17:27, Gilles Sadowski a > > écrit : > >> Hi. > >> > >> Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 16:19, Matt Juntunen > >> a écrit : > >>> The issue I saw with the site [1] was that the

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

On 30/03/2020 16:30, Gilles Sadowski wrote: Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 17:27, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : Hi. Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 16:19, Matt Juntunen a écrit : The issue I saw with the site [1] was that the text under the Releases section says "There is no offcial release yet. Come and

Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 17:05, Xeno Amess wrote: > > I prefer 3.0-rc1 rc1 is release candidate 1; the suffix is dropped for the actual release artifacts. e.g. we vote on 3.0-beta1-rc1 but the release is called 3.0-beta1 > but 3.0-beta1 sounds far better than 3.0-B1 +1 > XenoAmess > >

Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

I prefer 3.0-rc1 but 3.0-beta1 sounds far better than 3.0-B1 XenoAmess From: Gilles Sadowski Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:37:43 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B". Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 16:49,

Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 16:49, Matt Juntunen a écrit : > > +1 for "beta". +1 Gilles > > -Matt > > From: Rob Tompkins > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 10:25 AM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B". >

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 17:27, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > > Hi. > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 16:19, Matt Juntunen > a écrit : > > > > The issue I saw with the site [1] was that the text under the Releases > > section says "There is no offcial release yet. Come and join development > > work!"

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Hi. Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 16:19, Matt Juntunen a écrit : > > The issue I saw with the site [1] was that the text under the Releases > section says "There is no offcial release yet. Come and join development > work!" Clearly, that won't work for a release version. Ah OK. I had created that

Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

+1 for "beta". -Matt From: Rob Tompkins Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 10:25 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B". I’m a +1 on “beta" over “B" It is indeed a good idea. > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:14

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

That seems reasonable to me. > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Matt Juntunen wrote: > > The issue I saw with the site [1] was that the text under the Releases > section says "There is no offcial release yet. Come and join development > work!" Clearly, that won't work for a release version. > >

Re: [poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

I’m a +1 on “beta" over “B" It is indeed a good idea. > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Hi All: > > I would like to update https://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html to > read: > > "Beta releases are denoted by adding "-beta" after the > release number. For

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

The issue I saw with the site [1] was that the text under the Releases section says "There is no offcial release yet. Come and join development work!" Clearly, that won't work for a release version. Also, the Nexus staging repository (1496) failed validation because it could not find my key in

[poll] Beta versions should be labeled "Beta", not "B".

Hi All: I would like to update https://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html to read: "Beta releases are denoted by adding "-beta" after the release number. For example, if the current release version is 2.0.4, and a developer wished to preview the next major release, the release would be

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:58 AM Alex Herbert > > wrote: > >> >> On 30/03/2020 14:27, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> If "B" stands for "Beta", then make the POM version "1.0-beta1", no need >>> for mystery. >>

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:58 AM Alex Herbert wrote: > > On 30/03/2020 14:27, Gary Gregory wrote: > > If "B" stands for "Beta", then make the POM version "1.0-beta1", no need > > for mystery. > > In Matt's defence I think he was following the naming conventions from > the commons versioning guide

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

On 30/03/2020 14:27, Gary Gregory wrote: If "B" stands for "Beta", then make the POM version "1.0-beta1", no need for mystery. In Matt's defence I think he was following the naming conventions from the commons versioning guide [1]. That uses: "Beta releases are denoted by adding "B" I

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 15:38, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > > Hello. > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 15:06, Matt Juntunen > a écrit : > > > > I made it all the way up to the vote email and then realized that the site > > index page does not have a link to the downloads page. So, I'm going to > >

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Hello. Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 15:06, Matt Juntunen a écrit : > > I made it all the way up to the vote email and then realized that the site > index page does not have a link to the downloads page. So, I'm going to scrap > RC1 and start RC2 either later today or tomorrow. I'm not sure what

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

If "B" stands for "Beta", then make the POM version "1.0-beta1", no need for mystery. Gary On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:06 AM Matt Juntunen wrote: > I made it all the way up to the vote email and then realized that the site > index page does not have a link to the downloads page. So, I'm going to

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

I made it all the way up to the vote email and then realized that the site index page does not have a link to the downloads page. So, I'm going to scrap RC1 and start RC2 either later today or tomorrow. -Matt From: Alex Herbert Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 9:15