Builds fine on Mac with JDK8
+1
-h
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 (from RC3)
>
> This should fix earlier Java 6 / Maven 3.0 build issues with RC2 and
> adds a BUILDING.txt
>
> (Tested with Centos 6, O
I would suggest to use a build toolchain (which has been around
forever) for the actual compilation and maybe raise the minimum
requirement for Maven to be something more modern. So you use a JDK 7+
to drive the build process but can use a JDK 6 to actually compile the
jars.
We used that setup in
+1 for releasing. Compiled and tested on MacOS X running Java 8.
-h
[Seems I am still a committer. Haven't been here in a while. ]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 (from RC2)
>
>
> SVN tag:
>
> https:
I could deploy to nexus and I could promote the repo to maven but I could
not do the magic to move the release tarballs into place.
Thanks,
Henning
(+1 to change the rules to allow committers to do releases)
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2013-11-05, Mark Thom
no, that's pretty much it. Awesome.
Thanks,
Henning
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2013-10-28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stefan. I will look into the README issue.
>
> I've modified the README doing s/1.9/1.10/g
>
Would it be possible
that you also remove the 1.9 files from the binaries and sources
folders?
Thanks a lot,
Henning
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2013-10-28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>>> From INFRA-6942:
>
>> "Currently only P
Thanks Stefan. I will look into the README issue.
-h
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2013-10-28, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > In the interim I can move the files for you - at least last Saturday I
> > posessed the karma required to do so.
>
> Done, but there didn't s
>From INFRA-6942:
"Currently only PMC members are allowed to make the final move from dev to
release. You have two options: 1) ask a PMC member to make the move 2) ask
the PMC to create a ticket with infra to allow all committers write access
to release. "
What? Is that intentional? If yes, can I
Seems I am missing some permissions here. I filed
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6942 for that.
Anyone has an idea? I appreciate any pointers.
Henning
Configuration downloads page:
http://commons.apache.org/configuration/download_configuration.cgi
(Please remember to verify the provided checksums and/or signatures
after you have downloaded a distribution!)
Henning Schmiedehausen
on behalf of the Apache Commons Team
Vote is now closed, the vote passes with three binding +1 votes from
Oliver Heger, Thomas Vandahl and Henning Schmiedehausen.
I will send out the announcement shortly.
Thanks for helping out here,
Henning
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> On 24.10.13 10:52, Henn
Maybe I should cast a vote, too. :-)
So, +1 to releasing.
Any additional votes? We would need at least one more...
Thanks,
Henning
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen
wrote:
> Bug fixes and minor enhancements from configuration 1.9.
>
> So I would like t
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> +1
BTW; the logo on that site does not have a (TM).
SCNR,
Henning
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h..
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Committed revision 1535372.
Thanks, that is awesome. I will put it on the maintenance branch and
if the release passes, patch the site with the new image. I don't
think that warrants an RC3 (because the actually released bits will be
unchang
Bug fixes and minor enhancements from configuration 1.9.
So I would like to release configuration 1.10.
Configuration 1.10 RC2 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/configuration/ (svn
revision 3340)
Maven artifacts are here:
https://repository.apache.org/c
Vote cancelled. Please vote on RC2.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen
wrote:
> [haven't done that in a long time. Please bear with me...]
>
> Bug fixes and minor enhancements from configuration 1.9.
>
> So I would like to release configuration 1.10.
&g
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
[...]
> The logo is missing its "TM" per Apache branding.
>
[...]
Oh, I thought that you meant the "Apache Commons" logo, so I was confused.
You seriously suggest that I change the PNG for "commons configuration"?
Feel free to send me patched
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen <
henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
> When I run "mvn site" I get a unit test error but the build does not fail,
>> which I do not understand:
>>
>> Running org.apache.commons.configuration.TestDataCon
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 22 October 2013 11:10, Henning Schmiedehausen
> wrote:
> > [haven't done that in a long time. Please bear with me...]
> >
> > Bug fixes and minor enhancements from configuration 1.9.
> >
> > So I
HO. The site code is unchanged from the 1.9
release; if Apache policy has changed and there need to be changes put into
the site, I hope someone will either step up or point me at the necessary
changes any patch is appreciated. I wish I could spend significant time
chasing down what needs to be
[haven't done that in a long time. Please bear with me...]
Bug fixes and minor enhancements from configuration 1.9.
So I would like to release configuration 1.10.
Configuration 1.10 RC1 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/configuration/ (svn revision
3321
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:33 AM, sebb wrote:
[...]
source-release.zip may be spurious.
>
These files get created when running
mvn -DdryRun release:prepare
instead of
mvn -Prelease -DdryRun release:prepare
The first one picks up the sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor from the apache
parent.
(
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:20 PM, sebb wrote:
[...]
> I don't like the release plugin; I think it is badly designed [1] so I
> don't use it; so I cannot help with it.
>
> [1] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-845
If that bothers you, use a modern SCM and set
false. This addresses all of
Hi,
so I was trying to cut an RC for config but it fails with
Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin:2.4:single
(source-release-assembly) on project commons-configuration: site did not
exist in the target directory - please run site:site before creating the
assembly
Hi,
it seems that config is now working patiently towards a 2.0 release (thanks
Oliver for all the work here!). The current trunk is no longer a drop-in
replacement for code using 1.x (there are method signature changes in
CompositeConfiguration and also bigger changes in the AbstractConfiguration
I do get a mail. :-)
-h
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 15:42, Apache Software Foundation
wrote:
> Testing reply to author to see if it appears on the pull request.
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
>
> wrote:
>> You can merge this Pull Request by run
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/hgschmie/commons-lang trunk
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/1
-- Commit Summary --
* Add a Triple tuple class analog to the Pair.
-- File Changes --
Yes. httpclient actually changes a lot between 3.x and 4.x and is not
backwards compatible. I recently ported a piece of code from 3.x to
4.x and the changes are simple but require code changes.
-h
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:09, sebb wrote:
> On 9 November 2010 17:47, Henning Schmiedehau
This opens the philosophical can of worms of whether the dependencies
in the POM should be the 'least version required to run this' or 'the
latest and greatest'.
personally, I prefer the former. If someone integrating vfs uses
commons-collections-3.2.1 in their project, they will override the
tran
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KERDUDOU Ronan
>> VIRAGE Group (France)
>> R&D : +33 (0)2 53 55 10 22
>> r...@viragegroup.com
>> www.viragegroup.com
>>
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
>>
So don't do a relocation. Problem solved, too. :-)
-h
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 00:25, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>> Get a relocation in. problem solved. "commons-vfs" ->
>> "org.apache.commons". See e.g.
>> http
8, James Carman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
> wrote:
>> This is an old, buggy location and it should be cleaned up over time.
>> Being locked into the mistakes of the past because some tool can not
>> understand it, doesn't seem to b
I'd say that Java7 is still at least 12 months out and another 6-12
months to general adoption.
-h
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 17:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that we (and in fact I started hacking
Get a relocation in. problem solved. "commons-vfs" ->
"org.apache.commons". See e.g.
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/xerces/xerces/2.0.2/xerces-2.0.2.pom on
how to do that.
This should go into repo1:
4.0.0
commons-vfs
commons-vfs
2.0.0
org.apache.commons
commons-vfs
If we release vfs2 and then we make changes that make it binary
> incompatible, then we have to go to 3 to do a new release. Am I
> missing something?
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
> wrote:
>> No, that would be a vfs2. With new package names and eve
> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:37, "Henning Schmiedehausen" <
> henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I would suggest that we (and in fact I started hacking around with
>>> this) release a vfs2 which is Java6+ only and fully generified.
>
7, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henn...@schmiedehausen.org]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 19:03
>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
+1
- I don't think that "has warnings" is a problem
- If deprecated APIs are still around, we can always remove them later.
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 13:12, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>
> Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.
I read all the concerns and comments and I believe that the
commons-net thing is a documentation issue. People who still use Java
1.4 today should probably know what they do when they upgrade a major
version changed new release of an API.
So my vote is +1 to release VFS as tagged and put there.
-
I like that idea. A lot. +1
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
> also?
>
> - Jörg
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...
I disagree with this. The tests run a little but almost no one will
ever run them. Shipping a 3MB file that is used with one test in the
whole distribution seems to be a waste of space and bandwidth for
everyone else.
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 06:03, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 09:49, sebb
I disagree that this is a blocker. This *might* be a documentation
issue that the FTP and FTPS providers require Java 1.5. Everything
else is just fine and usable.
On a side note: Everything but Java 6 has been EOLed. I would be
perfectly cool for all new components to be implicit "runs only on
Ja
That makes lots of sense to standardize.
So, if we standardize, IMHO we should standardize on provide both. It
really is only a single line in the default assembly. No big deal.
-h
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:59, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>
>>> We need both zips and tars of the sources for the actual
To support a possible soon tag and build for commons vfs, I set up a
CI build for the project at
https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/commons-vfs-trunk/
-h
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For addition
Hi,
are there any blocking bugs that would stop releasing of vfs-2.0 ? If
yes, which ones would that be?
-h
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.or
Uhm, actually, you don't have to report for November... :-)
Best regards
Henning
Torsten Curdt schrieb:
> Summary
> ===
>
> Nothing that really requires the board's attention. A quick overview
> of the past month:
>
> o Question has come up whether commons codec
46 matches
Mail list logo
