Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?

Vishal Mahajan wrote: Raul, I have filed three bugs (with suggested patches) - 36638, 36639, and 36640, which I found recently. I'll check-in the fix for each of these tomorrow Done with the fixes. Regards, Vishal and after that it's +1 from me. Regards, Vishal Raul Benito wrote: S

Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?

Although I have reviewed these fixes and they look fine and fairly low-risk, I think it probably makes sense to allow a few days (a week?) to let others test and make sure there are no regressions. Comments? I'm fairly new to the process, but I just think it makes sense to test the final bits a

Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?

I think your suggestion makes complete sense. We should give at least a week of testing (after significant check-ins) before an RC goes out and probably little more time before for the final release. Thanks for bringing this up and hopefully we can incorporate this going forward. Regards, Vis

Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?

I was also going to suggest a RC2 jar, for testing. I'll think that doing a RC jar right now is the best way to test the changes (There are a lot of people interested in testing that are afraid of generate themselves a jar). So hat do you all think if I go ahead and do a RC2.jar and after two wee

Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?

+1 from me. On 9/14/05, Raul Benito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was also going to suggest a RC2 jar, for testing. > > I'll think that doing a RC jar right now is the best way to test the > changes (There are a lot of people interested in testing that are > afraid of generate themselves a jar).

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36638] - Canonicalization of a DocumentFragment node always throws a c14n exception

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36639] - KeyValue.getPublicKey does not work

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36640] - Signature verification ignores the inclusive namespaces parameter of a excl c14n ds:CanonicalizationMethod

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?

+1 Raul Benito wrote: I was also going to suggest a RC2 jar, for testing. I'll think that doing a RC jar right now is the best way to test the changes (There are a lot of people interested in testing that are afraid of generate themselves a jar). So hat do you all think if I go ahead and do a

Testing the latest CVS

Folks, With the latest CVS (updated libraries) JDK1.5 : "ant clean test" works out of the box. JDK1.4 : "ant clean test" works out of the box. JDK1.3 : "ant clean test" works after i drop bc jar into jre/lib/ext and add the entry in java.security (1.3.1_15) Raul, Please use the lowest JDK (1.3.1_

Re: Testing the latest CVS

Sadly java 1.3 is not working in my gentoo amd64. I will compile it tomorrow noon with in java 1.5.0_01. Do you think is enought or do you think blackdown 1.4.2.02 is better? Regards, Raul On 9/14/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > With the latest CVS (updated libraries

Re: Testing the latest CVS

+1 should be ok. thanks, dims On 9/14/05, Raul Benito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sadly java 1.3 is not working in my gentoo amd64. > I will compile it tomorrow noon with source="1.2"/> in java 1.5.0_01. > Do you think is enought or do you think blackdown 1.4.2.02 is better? > > Regards, > >