On Jan 10, 2008 8:51 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to repeat myself again, but I really do not think the
> maven-remote-resources approach is
> even legal. IANAL, but as I understand things, we *must* not use this.
Simon,
I understand your concern to mean, that the NOTIC
Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Jan 9, 2008 11:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, not in my opinion. We've agreed to disagree on which way to go with
> > this. There are two option, each with its merits and flaws.
> >
> > A) Use maven-remote-resource
On Jan 10, 2008 4:37 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 looks good to me - I guess this is a good advert for the
> remote-resources-plugin, as the manfest looks OK :)
That was my impression too. :-)
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you br
On Jan 10, 2008 1:38 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMA
+1 looks good to me - I guess this is a good advert for the
remote-resources-plugin, as the manfest looks OK :)
Niall
On Jan 10, 2008 2:14 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a third release candidate of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. A list of changes since rc2
I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist
The proposed site is at
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/site
Sorry,
Jochen
-
To unsubscri
Hi,
I have prepared a third release candidate of commons-fileupload
1.2.1. A list of changes since rc2 and things that I haven't changes,
can be found below.
Thanks,
Jochen
[ ] +1
[ ] =0
[ ] -1
- The pom and jar files of commons-io 1.3.2 have been deployed
again to the m2 repository, this
On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
OK so now were down
On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > >>> OK so now were down t
On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >>> OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats
> >>> done I can cut an RC.
> >>>
On Jan 9, 2008 11:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, not in my opinion. We've agreed to disagree on which way to go with
> this. There are two option, each with its merits and flaws.
>
> A) Use maven-remote-resources-plugin
> B) Keep manually edited files in SVN and copy them
On 1/9/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=610444
> >
> > Thanks - shouldn't we do this in commons-parent pom though, not just for IO?
>
> No, not in my opinion. We've agreed to disagree on which way to go with
> this. There are two o
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats
done I can cut an RC.
I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I
may cut the rc with
On 1/9/08, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 10:39 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks - shouldn't we do this in commons-parent pom though, not just for IO?
>
> Yes, please!
>
Makes sense to me as well.
-Rahul
---
On Jan 9, 2008 10:39 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks - shouldn't we do this in commons-parent pom though, not just for IO?
Yes, please!
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you break 'em.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time)
-
On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats
> > done I can cut an RC.
> >
> > I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I
> > may cut the rc with m1, si
Niall Pemberton wrote:
OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats
done I can cut an RC.
I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I
may cut the rc with m1, since m2 seems to painful ATM (I've spent far
too much time battling with m2 recently).
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 7:55 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 7:12 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 6:49 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 4:19 PM
OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats
done I can cut an RC.
I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I
may cut the rc with m1, since m2 seems to painful ATM (I've spent far
too much time battling with m2 recently).
Niall
On Jan 9, 2008 9:
On Jan 8, 2008 7:55 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2008 7:12 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 2008 6:49 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 4:19 PM, Joch
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme has an issue affecting its community
integration.
This
Hi,
On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri and Jukka expressed interest on IO-137 - do you guys
> want to / have time to look at this?
Let's move it to post-1.4. The reset() issue still needs some thought
and probably shouldn't be rushed.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Happy to move IO-137 over to post-1.4.
Hen
On Jan 9, 2008 1:04 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK looks like were nearly ready for IO 1.4 release - theres a minor
> issue to resolve on IO-77[1] so that just leaves IO-137[2] to decide
> whether we're going to do anything about for
On Jan 8, 2008 4:32 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 4:11 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2008 3:11 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Jan 8, 2008 10:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 8, 20
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:10 PM
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 8:02 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello All:
> >
> > I've tested building and unit testing on a bunch of Java platforms [1] and
> > all
> looks well. If there is a specific
OK looks like were nearly ready for IO 1.4 release - theres a minor
issue to resolve on IO-77[1] so that just leaves IO-137[2] to decide
whether we're going to do anything about for 1.4 or move it to
post-1.4 - Henri and Jukka expressed interest on IO-137 - do you guys
want to / have time to look a
On Jan 8, 2008 4:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I understand that there are branches for introducing Generics
> and other Java5 and Java6 features into both Commons Lang and
> Commons Collections (collections_jdk5_branch and LangTwo-1.x
> respectively). I'd like to see these release
28 matches
Mail list logo
