Hi,
I did some comparison to previous packages, the following directories
were part of the poi-ooxml-schemas-jar, but are missing now. This is
on purpose, right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/12/15 23:53, Nick Burch wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Andreas Beeker wrote:
>> ... and my 2 cents: - most notable section is a bit short, for so
>> many changes (... but I'm also always puzzled what to mention and
>> what to skip)
>
> It's
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, David North wrote:
- where are the maven artifacts?
We normally upload these into a /maven/ subdirectory in the
dist-dev, for people to check, then upload into Nexus + delete
before moving the binary + source releases to the main dev area.
Might need an update for the
Dominik Stadler wrote
> I did some comparison to previous packages, the following directories
> were part of the poi-ooxml-schemas-jar, but are missing now. This is
> on purpose, right?
Yes, this was on purpose - see #58617 for details and justification
Andi
--
View this message in context:
Limited read-only support limited in the sense that it supports the
features that we needed for parsing a relatively complex visio diagram,
but it is by no means complete for all features that Visio supports. As
people start using it, more features can be added.
Dustin
On 12/8/15 5:25
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57450
--- Comment #17 from Javen O'Neal ---
Updated spreadsheet quickguide in r1718764.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
Feedback on release notes:
- Is the addition of Visio OOMXL for read/write support, or just read?
Perhaps more detail is needed.
- I think the amount of progress towards Common SL warrants inclusion in
the release notes.
Otherwise, +1
On Dec 8, 2015 1:57 PM, "Dominik Stadler"
Ok, then I am +1 as well.
Dominik
Am 08.12.2015 16:32 schrieb "kiwiwings" :
> Dominik Stadler wrote
> > I did some comparison to previous packages, the following directories
> > were part of the poi-ooxml-schemas-jar, but are missing now. This is
> > on purpose, right?
>
>