Re: [jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-21 Thread Andrew Gaul
@@ -158,9 +158,8 @@ private Blob createUpdatedCopyOfBlobInContainer(String containerName, Blob in) { try { if (payload == null || !(payload instanceof ByteArrayPayload)) { MutableContentMetadata oldMd = in.getPayload().getContentMetadata(); -

Re: [jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-21 Thread Andrew Gaul
Closed #301. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/301

Re: [jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-21 Thread Andrew Gaul
Pushed to master. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/301#issuecomment-35789978

Re: [jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-21 Thread Andrew Phillips
@@ -158,9 +158,8 @@ private Blob createUpdatedCopyOfBlobInContainer(String containerName, Blob in) { try { if (payload == null || !(payload instanceof ByteArrayPayload)) { MutableContentMetadata oldMd = in.getPayload().getContentMetadata(); -

[jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-19 Thread Andrew Gaul
Guava helpers capture this functionality in a more idiomatic way. You can merge this Pull Request by running: git pull https://github.com/maginatics/jclouds remove-write-to Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/301 -- Commit Summary

Re: [jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-19 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin
[jclouds-pull-requests #614](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/614/) SUCCESS This pull request looks good --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/301#issuecomment-35594694

Re: [jclouds] Remove WriteTo (#301)

2014-02-19 Thread CloudBees pull request builder plugin
[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests #1085](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/1085/) SUCCESS This pull request looks good --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/301#issuecomment-35595408