[Commons Wiki] Trivial Update of "ComponentPlans" by ChristianGrobmeier

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by ChristianGrobmeier: http://wiki.apache.org/commons/ComponentPlans The comment on the change is: added compress -

[Commons Wiki] Trivial Update of "CompressRoadmap" by ChristianGrobmeier

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by ChristianGrobmeier: http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CompressRoadmap The comment on the change is: added new issue ---

Re: [VOTE-RESULT] compress is promoted to proper

*cheer* My +0 not withstanding, this is great :) On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm happy to announce that compress has been promoted to a proper > component. > > The vote ended with no -1s and 13 +1s (I didn't assert all of these 13 > were binding, but kno

[Commons Wiki] Trivial Update of "FrontPage" by ChristianGrobmeier

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by ChristianGrobmeier: http://wiki.apache.org/commons/FrontPage The comment on the change is: moved compress to proper

Re: [compress] Infrastructure changes after promotion

Additionally, can you pleaes tag the component after the move? http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingComponents Thanks Christian On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hi, > > as far as I know you have to apply a DOAP file. I created one, see this issue: > https://issues.apa

Re: [compress] Infrastructure changes after promotion

Hi, as far as I know you have to apply a DOAP file. I created one, see this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-304 I guess pathes will be correct, but better review please. Cheers Christian On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Hi, > > the things to do: > >

Re: [compress] Open Issues Discussion

Thanks Stefan and Sebb, I reorganized the wiki page on that basis. http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CompressRoadmap Christian On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2009-03-19, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > >> * SANDBOX-293 Make ZiparchiveInputStream support as much of the z

[Commons Wiki] Trivial Update of "CompressRoadmap" by ChristianGrobmeier

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by ChristianGrobmeier: http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CompressRoadmap The comment on the change is: organized issues for 1.0 and 1.1 version --

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

+0 on the idea (tending to +1 with better understanding of the value). I've not used jcip-annotations, but it seems like a good thing to depend upon. Shared concerns with thread: * Adding a dependency is wince-worthy, but I agree with you on it being akin to JUnit and not runtime. We should have c

Re: [configuration] Review please: svn commit: r755352 - in /commons/proper/vfs/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/vfs/provider: http/HttpFileObject.java webdav/WebdavFileObject.java

I ran the test and this is fine. Ralph On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: Sorry, I've had a busy couple of days. Basically, the webdav support leverages the HTTP support where possible, but the setupMethod in the WebdavFileObject does do a bit more. Frankly, I simply never tr

[compress] Infrastructure changes after promotion

Hi, the things to do: * move in svn I'll take care of it and modify the externals for trunks-sandbox and trunks-proper * different parent POM org.apache.commons commons-parent 11 should be correct, at least this is what CLI's POM says. * setup a new JIRA project for c

Re: [g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration (in module apache-commons) failed

Commons Configuration's trunk is compatible with Java 1.3 and is going to remain so for a while so I don't see how it can be modified to require Commons Lang trunk. The configuration2-experimental branch provides the support for Java 5 but is still quite a ways away from being ready to be p

[VOTE-RESULT] compress is promoted to proper

Hi all, I'm happy to announce that compress has been promoted to a proper component. The vote ended with no -1s and 13 +1s (I didn't assert all of these 13 were binding, but know that many more than 3 are).

Re: [compress] Open Issues Discussion

On 2009-03-19, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > * SANDBOX-293 Make ZiparchiveInputStream support as much of the zip > package as possible > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-293 > Looks like big work here. Even if it looks necessary, I would enjoy if > we do that in 1.1. It feels like a n

Re: [g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration (in module apache-commons) failed

Is commons-configuration going to be adapted to the commons-lang changes or are we at a point where we need to figure out a way to isolate commons-configuration from lang's trunk? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@

Re: [LANG][GUMP] Take current Lang changes out of main Gump?

On 2009-03-18, sebb wrote: > On 18/03/2009, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Gump doesn't provide the POMs, it uses them of the original >> repository. > Maybe the Gump descriptor syntax could be extended to provide a means > of specifying replacements to be made in the POM? > This would tell Gump t

[Note of Intent] CLI2 -> Sandbox

I'm planning to rework the CLI side of things so that CLI-1.x becomes trunk and CLI2 moves off to the branch. Currently it's the other way around but all activity is around the CLI-1 side of things. I don't see CLI2 ever hitting a release point, so I'd like to make it clear and declare it a differ

[ANNOUNCE] Commons CLI 1.2 Released

I'd like to announce that Commons CLI 1.2 has been released. Commons CLI provides an API for processing command line interfaces. This is a minor release, containing the last 2 years of bugfixes and minor improvements to the CLI codebase. Full details of this can be found in the release notes:

Re: [RESULT] Release Commons CLI 1.2 (RC7)

Site looks good. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > Site pushed manually. > > Jetlag hitting me, so I won't get the chance to see if it autodeploys > properly until tomorrow morning.  Hour plus of waiting hasn't seen a > change yet. > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Henri

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

Sebb, After Lang 3.0 gets released, why not branch just for the JCIP stuff? Sometimes you can only convince my demonstration. I think that would be an acceptable evaluation. Paul On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 20/03/

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, sebb wrote: > On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne >> >> wrote: >>  > sebb wrote: >>  >> >>  >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >>  >>> >>  >>>  So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne > > wrote: > > sebb wrote: > >> > >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > >>> > >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to > >>> compilcate the compliation and to f

[Commons Wiki] Update of "CommonsOsgi" by NiallPemberton

Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by NiallPemberton: http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsOsgi The comment on the change is: Add CLI 1.2 release ---

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > sebb wrote: >> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >>> >>>  So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to >>> compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable >>> confusion/questions >>> as to 'why we a

Re: [RESULT] Release Commons CLI 1.2 (RC7)

Site pushed manually. Jetlag hitting me, so I won't get the chance to see if it autodeploys properly until tomorrow morning. Hour plus of waiting hasn't seen a change yet. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > 1.2 version pushed into the sync repository. I've mailed repository

Re: [configuration] Review please: svn commit: r755352 - in /commons/proper/vfs/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/vfs/provider: http/HttpFileObject.java webdav/WebdavFileObject.java

Sorry, I've had a busy couple of days. Basically, the webdav support leverages the HTTP support where possible, but the setupMethod in the WebdavFileObject does do a bit more. Frankly, I simply never tried making the setup method in HttpFileObject protected so I don't know if there would be

[configuration] Review please: svn commit: r755352 - in /commons/proper/vfs/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/vfs/provider: http/HttpFileObject.java webdav/WebdavFileObject.java

Ralph, ping? Jörg Schaible wrote: > Guys, > > I am not sure about my change here. It was simply not compilable in > Eclipse, but that might also have been due to stricter compiler settings. > Actually both HttpFileObject and WebdavFileObject contain a setupMethod > method. In both classes it was

Re: [configuration] Local lookup fix & enhancement

Hi, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi folks, > > OK then, so don't be surprised if I start to commit. I will have to make > me familiar with the experimental branch first though. > > Oliver Heger wrote: > >> I am fine with both points and also agree with the comments of Ralph. >> >> 1) sounds that th

Re: [RESULT] Release Commons CLI 1.2 (RC7)

1.2 version pushed into the sync repository. I've mailed repository@ asking for commons-cli/ to be added to the sync list. Dist and src added to the download locations, along with release notes. Will wait on both of the above to be synced, then push out the website delta to point to the downloads

[RESULT] Release Commons CLI 1.2 (RC7)

Commons CLI 1.2 RC7 successfully passed its vote with +1s from: * Gary Gregory * Siegfried Goeschl * Luc Maisonobe * Oliver Heger * Jörg Schaible and my own implicit +1. Hen On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > Fixing the unit test failure that Jörg found. > > --- > > Tag:

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, James Carman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM, sebb wrote: > > Yes, unless it is a Commons-specific (or ASF) annotation (who knows, > > this might be useful one day), we should use exising ones. > > > If it's commons-specific, then we have to code the "stuff" that uses >

RE: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

> -Original Message- > From: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com [mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Paul Benedict > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:37 AM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations > > sebb, > > I must have mis-stated my point. If Co

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM, sebb wrote: > Yes, unless it is a Commons-specific (or ASF) annotation (who knows, > this might be useful one day), we should use exising ones. If it's commons-specific, then we have to code the "stuff" that uses it (like a findbugs "plugin" or something). Using

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, Matt Benson wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman wrote: > > > From: James Carman > > Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations > > > To: "Commons Developers List" > > > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 1:14 AM > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, > > > Stephen Colebo

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman wrote: > From: James Carman > Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations > To: "Commons Developers List" > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 1:14 AM > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, > Stephen Colebourne > > wrote: > > > > Thats OK technically (as there is no

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, James Carman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Stephen Colebourne > wrote: > > But due to the way maven generates documentation, and the data in the pom, > > it will /appear/ like [lang] does have a dependency. > > > > > We can mark it as optional in our pom. That way

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > sebb wrote: > > > On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > > > > So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to > > > compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable > confusion/questions > > > as to 'why we added a depende

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > But due to the way maven generates documentation, and the data in the pom, > it will /appear/ like [lang] does have a dependency. > We can mark it as optional in our pom. That way, it won't be included transitively. -

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

sebb wrote: On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote: So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable confusion/questions as to 'why we added a dependency' (when we didn't add one really...) Again, I'm not sure I follow.

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote: > sebb, > > I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP @Immutable > annotations, and another Commons project uses a theoretical XYZ > @NotMutable annotations, we will have lost the ability to track bugs > across project boundaries. So my poin

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

Yes, *if* a project wants to use it, they should all use the same thing. That way, we can put something in the parent pom file that uses the annotations. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > sebb, > > I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP @Immutable > anno

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

sebb, I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP @Immutable annotations, and another Commons project uses a theoretical XYZ @NotMutable annotations, we will have lost the ability to track bugs across project boundaries. So my point was that we should all agree that using JCIP -- if

Re: [compress] Open Issues Discussion

On 19/03/2009, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hi, > diving into the open issues, I would like prio them. > > * SANDBOX-282 TAR formaT unspecified > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-282 > I would do this in version 1.1. Its an important thing, but will need > its time, at least, if

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote: > I think the use of JCIP annotations should be an Apache Commons-wide > decision. It would only be sensible to share the annotations across > projects. Otherwise, we could get fragmentation pretty easily. Fragmentation? If a project uses concurrency annotat

Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations

On 19/03/2009, James Carman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne > wrote: > > > > Thats OK technically (as there is no runtime dependency on > > net.jcip.annotations). However, I suspect it will confuse users, as very > few > > people realise that no dependency is c

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-vfs (in module apache-commons) failed

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 gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-vfs has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue a

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration (in module apache-commons) failed

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 gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-configuration has an issue affecting its community integration. Th