The vote for Maven 3 is underway - http://markmail.org/message/4itian33hycyt4iz
I have tested the builds for all the components in trunks-proper
(using mvn -Prc clean package) and they worked, except for test
failures with configuration, email and jci - but I get those using m2
as well.
Theres an
Great. Thanks for taking the time to do this!
Gary
On Oct 5, 2010, at 21:45, "Tim Sneddon" wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 07:23 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 2 October 2010 16:11, sebb wrote:
>> These are all due to failure to destroy the subprocess on OpenVMS.
>>
>> I don't know if there is a workround.
>
Hi folks,
one note regarding the regression tests - check if there are still
background processes running because they will break the next test run
as well.
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 10/6/10 6:19 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 October 2010 05:44, Tim Sneddon wrote:
On 10/06/2010 07:23 AM, sebb
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=916&projectId=108
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 6 Oct 2010 17:52:33 +
Finished at: Wed 6 Oct 2010 17:56:00 +
Total time: 3m 27s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:35, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
>>> wrote:
There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>
On Oct 6, 2010, at 5:49, "Niall Pemberton"
mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible
mailto:joerg.schai...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Nial wrote:
The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
hence the major version changed - I guess i
Niall, if the rules allow a major version bump, then you are free to
do it. However, the major version bump is misleading to me and I
wouldn't choose it if I was RM.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010
On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Niall,
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> No - if/when IO breaks binary compatibility, then IMO there will be a
> package name change and major version. I'll sort out JIRA if/when this
> release is out
>
So, we have:
Version 1.x: org.apache.commons.io
Version 2.x: org.apache.c
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Let's say IO went out as 2.0 and it was binary compatible. There are
> enhancements planned for for 2.x that would break compatibility. Is
> that still okay?
No - if/when IO breaks binary compatibility, then IMO there will be a
package name c
Let's say IO went out as 2.0 and it was binary compatible. There are
enhancements planned for for 2.x that would break compatibility. Is
that still okay? I find it odd we would strive for 2.0 to be binary
compatible, but allow 2.x not to be.
Paul
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Jörg Schaible wr
Hi guys,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) t
This is really a question for the Commons User list:
http://commons.apache.org/dbcp/mail-lists.html
Please subscribe and ask there.
On 6 October 2010 12:21, Varma, Sanjay wrote:
> Hi Guys
>
> Have created a Java's DBCP connection pool using BasicDataSource each one for
> primary and secondary
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> Commons is a federation. IMO Its not a one-size-fits all with a set of
> rules to make all components adhere to. We do different things on
> different projects and generally leave decisions up to the developers
> on that component.
>
If
On 6 October 2010 05:44, Tim Sneddon wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 07:23 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 2 October 2010 16:11, sebb wrote:
>> These are all due to failure to destroy the subprocess on OpenVMS.
>>
>> I don't know if there is a workround.
>
> I know some time ago I had some fixes to the OpenVMS s
On 6 October 2010 12:53, James Carman wrote:
> So it's not a blocker then if we want to release?
No, I don't think it's a blocker, though we probably need to make the
restrictions clearer.
But of course it would be nice to have a solution ...
> On Oct 6, 2010 7:21 AM, "sebb" wrote:
>> On 6 Oct
On 6 October 2010 16:20, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>>
>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
>> think it should be 2.0. So far there are fi
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>>
>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
>> think it should be 2.0. So far there
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
> think it should be 2.0. So far there are five who think 1.5 (Jörg,
> James, Michael, Paul & Matt)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:
>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
>> that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
>> compatibility. Like with Lang
On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
> that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
> compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release
> would be a major
I tend to agree that 2.0 should allow backwards incompatible changes.
If it is simply adding generics and cleaning up code, it deserves a
1.5 version number. That's how I see it anyway.
Paul
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> As a user (and occasional contributo
Hey All,
As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release
would be a major change (dropping backwards compatibility, removing
deprecated co
Hi Guys
Have created a Java's DBCP connection pool using BasicDataSource each one for
primary and secondary databases.
Can anybody please confirm/comment if say primary database or secondary
database goes down at that time will the BasicDataSource still holds the DB
connections in the connecti
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Nial wrote:
>>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>>> starting point:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>>>
>>>
So it's not a blocker then if we want to release?
On Oct 6, 2010 7:21 AM, "sebb" wrote:
> On 6 October 2010 10:36, James Carman wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> These are all due to failure to destroy the subprocess on OpenVMS.
>>>
>>> I don't know if there is a workroun
> Nial wrote:
>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>> starting point:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>>
>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most
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-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
On 6 October 2010 11:49, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
> starting point:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>
> Sebb did bring this up earlier thi
On 6 October 2010 10:36, James Carman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM, sebb wrote:
>> These are all due to failure to destroy the subprocess on OpenVMS.
>>
>> I don't know if there is a workround.
>>
>
> Is this something new? Did previous versions of exec pass these tests
> on OpenVMS?
So, call it 1.5
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Niall,
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes i
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-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to c
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM, sebb wrote:
> These are all due to failure to destroy the subprocess on OpenVMS.
>
> I don't know if there is a workround.
>
Is this something new? Did previous versions of exec pass these tests
on OpenVMS?
Hi Niall,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to
> give time for feedback.
>
> The distro is her
35 matches
Mail list logo
