I'm hoping to do a BeanUtils 1.8.0 release once BEANUTILS-291[1] is
resolved - which hopefully will be soon, just waiting on feedback from
the reporter.
Niall
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-291
-
To unsubscr
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=72588&projectId=156
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 2 Apr 2008 19:34:08 -0700
Finished at: Wed 2 Apr 2008 19:37:02 -0700
Total time: 2m 54s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build N
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=72588&projectId=156
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 2 Apr 2008 19:34:08 -0700
Finished at: Wed 2 Apr 2008 19:37:02 -0700
Total time: 2m 54s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build N
On 03/04/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Warning of my intention to remove code deprecated in
> > trunk. Why release a 1.0 with deprecations?
> >
>
>
> Fire away! +1 to removing all deprecated methods b
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warning of my intention to remove code deprecated in
> trunk. Why release a 1.0 with deprecations?
>
Fire away! +1 to removing all deprecated methods before a release.
Also, if we see anything that's "clutter", we should c
Removing
allows the test to run, but then the report fails with:
javax.xml.transform.TransformerFactoryConfigurationError: Provider
org.apache.xalan.processor.TransformerFactoryImpl not found
On 03/04/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just committed some stuff based on e
Just committed some stuff based on earlier Ant FAQs.
Gotta go for now though--good luck!
-Matt
--- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think you've found the junit problem I
> mentioned:
> >
> > run-tests:
> > [junit] Using loader null o
--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you've found the junit problem I mentioned:
>
> run-tests:
> [junit] Using loader null on class
>
org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.junit.XMLJUnitResultFormatter:
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/w3c/dom/Node
>
> This was using Java 1.
I think you've found the junit problem I mentioned:
run-tests:
[junit] Using loader null on class
org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.junit.XMLJUnitResultFormatter:
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/w3c/dom/Node
This was using Java 1.3.1 and Ant 1.7.0 (junit 3.8.2);
The same happens with
--- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Matt Benson wrote:
> > We've talked about releasing a Collections 4.0
> with
> > deprecations removed.
> > With all the recent interest in [functor], it
> seems
> > like it might be time to deprecate functor-related
> > code from [collection
Matt Benson wrote:
We've talked about releasing a Collections 4.0 with
deprecations removed.
With all the recent interest in [functor], it seems
like it might be time to deprecate functor-related
code from [collections] in 3.3 (or 3.4, but more
notice is better than less) for removal in 4.0
POM files are XML, right?
So they ought to start with the following, no?
(possibly with no or different encoding)
This line seems to have been omitted from quite a few poms.
Also, commons-parent-9.pom seems to have lost its AL header too - it
was in version 8.
Warning of my intention to remove code deprecated in
trunk. Why release a 1.0 with deprecations?
-Matt
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
h
We've talked about releasing a Collections 4.0 with
deprecations removed.
With all the recent interest in [functor], it seems
like it might be time to deprecate functor-related
code from [collections] in 3.3 (or 3.4, but more
notice is better than less) for removal in 4.0 with
[functor] being t
Arg, is there any interest in pushing out a 2.4.1 for this?
Thank you,
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gregory (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:09 AM
> To: Gary Gregory
> Subject: [jira] Resolved: (LANG-421) StringEscapeUtils.escapeJava(String)
On 02/04/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Carman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Author: niallp
> > > > Da
--- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Author: niallp
> > > Date: Wed Apr 2 06:06:24 2008
> > > New Revision: 643897
> > >
> > > URL
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know and haven't combed the archives 'cause
> I'm lazy. Later today I'll blow away my branch if we
> think we can whip what's there into shape prior to
> tackling generics.
That's fine with me. I guess the onl
--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've actually been thinking the same thing--if we
> get
> > other issues sorted out before adding generics
> code.
> > I'm just trying to keep my personal desire for a
> >
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Author: niallp
> > Date: Wed Apr 2 06:06:24 2008
> > New Revision: 643897
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=643897&view=rev
> > Log:
> >
On 02/04/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Author: niallp
> > Date: Wed Apr 2 06:06:24 2008
> > New Revision: 643897
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=643897&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Add back the bui
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: niallp
> Date: Wed Apr 2 06:06:24 2008
> New Revision: 643897
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=643897&view=rev
> Log:
> Add back the build.xml
>
Can we use a maven-generated buid.xml file?
---
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've actually been thinking the same thing--if we get
> other issues sorted out before adding generics code.
> I'm just trying to keep my personal desire for a
> 1.3-compatible release from infringing too much on
> others
On 02/04/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Matt Benson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:30 P
--- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Matt Benson
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Good questions! I su
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Matt Benson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Good questions! I suppose that's the thing to
> > do,
> > > with the understanding t
Matt Benson skrev den 01-04-2008 23:30:
--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, what version would you use for the
non-genericized functor? 1.0?
Then, the genericized version should be 2.0 (with
o.a.c.functor2
package names)?
Good questions! I suppose that's the thing to do
27 matches
Mail list logo
