Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> 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.
Relocations are only of use if the version is upward compatible, otherwise
it's counter
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> 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 1.5 and the
>> requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
>> LargeTarTestCase has been added to the tes
James Carman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
>>
>
> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to be for 1.0 here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repo
sebb wrote:
> Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
>
> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
> return a FileSystem [1]
>
> Can anyone else confirm that this is a sensible change?
>
> [1
On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
>>
>> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
>> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
>> return a FileSystem [1]
>>
>> Can any
On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
>>
>
> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to be for 1.0 here:
>
> ht
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
>>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to b
On 8 November 2010 07:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
>> Behalf Of James Carman
>> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 18:14
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: Backwards incompatible change
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
>>>
>>> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
>>> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
>>> retur
On 8 November 2010 10:37, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>
Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
if DefaultFil
Le 08/11/2010 00:49, er...@apache.org a écrit :
> Author: erans
> Date: Sun Nov 7 23:49:42 2010
> New Revision: 1032424
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1032424&view=rev
> Log:
> MATH-195
> Added requested Javadoc comment.
> Removed unused import.
Fine. Thanks Gilles.
Luc
>
> Modifie
The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
ant:ant ... 1.6.2 -> 1.6.5
commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 -> 3.1
commons-collections:commons-collections . 3.1 -> 3.2.1
javax.mail:mail
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:13 AM, sebb wrote:
> The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
>
> ant:ant ... 1.6.2 -> 1.6.5
> commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 -> 3.1
> commons-
"+1 release it"
I don't like using a build named "commons-vfs-20070611.jar" because no
official release exists...
Also, if VFS2 isn't backward compatible and lists all changes to make during
upgrade, we should consider patching FileContentInputStream to return false
in method markSupported()
See h
Hi,
I'm not sure to understand all the problem because i don't use maven at all,
but is it possible to solve your problems by doing 2 releases with a fork :
- VFS V2.0 with java 4 and compatible whith 1.1 (same package)
- VFS2 V1.0 (or V.2.1) with java 5 and no backward compatibility and package
c
sebb wrote:
> The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
>
> ant:ant ... 1.6.2 -> 1.6.5
> commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 -> 3.1
> commons-collections:commons-collections . 3.1 -> 3.2.1
> jav
Henning,
it isn't as simple as you believe. See, for example, this thread:
http://marc.info/?t=12825660982&r=1&w=2
The conclusion was, as I read it at the time, that you should expect
that users still have to edit their respective pom files. Which is a
blocker, IMO.
Apart from that, what
On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman wrote:
> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Perhaps someone thought it was needed for the Maven Antrun plugin?
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:13 AM, sebb wrote:
>> The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman wrote:
>> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>
> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Actually, the tasks package uses org.apache.tools.ant (I was looking
for org.apache.ant)
> Perhaps someone thought it was needed
> -Original Message-
> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
> Behalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 04:46
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Update dependencies?
>
> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>
> On Mon, N
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman wrote:
>> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>
> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
>
> Perhaps someone thought it was needed for the Maven Antrun plugin?
No. VfsTask is based on Ant:
core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/vfs/tasks/VfsT
On 8 November 2010 13:57, Ronan KERDUDOU - VirageGroup
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure to understand all the problem because i don't use maven at all,
The problem is not only with Maven, although that does add other complications.
Suppose you have a project with two dependencies (A, B) on VFS 1.0.
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb wrote:
>> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>>
>> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
>
> Actually, the tasks package uses org.apache.tools.ant (I was looking
> for org.apache.ant)
See also: h
On 8 November 2010 16:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
>> Behalf Of James Carman
>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 04:46
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Update dependencies?
>>
On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb wrote:
>>> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman
>>> wrote:
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>>>
>>> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
>>
>> Actually, the tasks package uses org.a
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1488&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Mon 8 Nov 2010 21:33:50 +
Finished at: Mon 8 Nov 2010 21:35:58 +
Total time: 2m 8s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Henning,
>
> it isn't as simple as you believe. See, for example, this thread:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=12825660982&r=1&w=2
>
> The conclusion was, as I read it at the time, that you should expect
> that users still have to edit their re
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1491&projectId=107
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Tue 9 Nov 2010 02:24:31 +
Finished at: Tue 9 Nov 2010 02:30:18 +
Total time: 5m 46s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
28 matches
Mail list logo
