+1 in general on removing author tags (it's a board recommendation after
all). But strong -1 on removing them without adding them to some central
list of contributors.
On 12.09.2011 16:27:26 vhennebert wrote:
Author: vhennebert
Date: Mon Sep 12 14:27:25 2011
New Revision: 1169766
URL:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43474
Sergey Vladimirov vlser...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Hi Guys,
I want to propose an upgrade of our test system to JUnit 4, the
benefits of upgrading can be found on plenty of blogs [1], but I just
wanted to get a feel of what everyone thought? For those that aren't
familiar with JUnit 4, it is backward compatible, so that may
alleviate some
Thanks Mehdi for considering this, thats a +1 from me.
This will require some work. A quick search on the subject of 3 to 4
migration yielded quite a few guides that pointed out some pitfalls.
A general recommendation, for instance, is not to mix JUnit 3 and 4
conventions, e.g. est classes
On 14/09/11 07:54, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
+1 in general on removing author tags (it's a board recommendation after
all). But strong -1 on removing them without adding them to some central
list of contributors.
Makes sense, although there’s something I’m not too sure about.
Those of the
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51807
Bug #: 51807
Summary: Small memory waste in TableContentPosition
Product: Fop
Version: 1.0
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: trivial
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51808
Bug #: 51808
Summary: Minor memory waste in Area
Product: Fop
Version: 1.0
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority:
You're right. I think there's a lot of inconsistency here. So, why not
keep it VERY simple?
1. Wipe the team page clean.
2. Add a paragraph with a alphabetically sorted, comma-separated list of
names of contributors (without mail addresses, includes committers). The
listing would be regardless of
i don't understand why they should be removed even if replaced by a common
list:
(1) citing authors in the source files they contribute helps future efforts
to research issues
(2) citing authors in the source files they contribute helps in addressing
any IPR issues that might arise
(3) moving
On 14/09/11 13:13, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
You're right. I think there's a lot of inconsistency here. So, why not
keep it VERY simple?
1. Wipe the team page clean.
2. Add a paragraph with a alphabetically sorted, comma-separated list of
names of contributors (without mail addresses, includes
On 14.09.2011 15:07:11 Glenn Adams wrote:
i don't understand why they should be removed even if replaced by a common
list:
First of all because of a ASF board recommendation:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2004/board_minutes_2004_02_18.txt
ok, that's a reasonable argument for not attempting to track in line;
btw, it would be nice to convert to GIT some time as the primary repo
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Jeremias Maerki d...@jeremias-maerki.chwrote:
On 14.09.2011 15:07:11 Glenn Adams wrote:
i don't understand why they
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46962
Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27477|0 |1
is
I know many people would love the ASF to move to GIT as the primary
repository. Or Mercurial. Or... At the moment, SVN is the only SCM
supported by the ASF infrastructure team.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2010/board_minutes_2010_09_22.txt
Apparently, the infrastructure team
14 matches
Mail list logo
