Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1491&projectId=107
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Tue 9 Nov 2010 02:24:31 +
Finished at: Tue 9 Nov 2010 02:30:18 +
Total time: 5m 46s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Henning,
>
> it isn't as simple as you believe. See, for example, this thread:
>
> http://marc.info/?t=12825660982&r=1&w=2
>
> The conclusion was, as I read it at the time, that you should expect
> that users still have to edit their re
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1488&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Mon 8 Nov 2010 21:33:50 +
Finished at: Mon 8 Nov 2010 21:35:58 +
Total time: 2m 8s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb wrote:
>>> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman
>>> wrote:
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>>>
>>> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
>>
>> Actually, the tasks package uses org.a
On 8 November 2010 16:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
>> Behalf Of James Carman
>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 04:46
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VFS] Update dependencies?
>>
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb wrote:
>> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>>
>> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
>
> Actually, the tasks package uses org.apache.tools.ant (I was looking
> for org.apache.ant)
See also: h
On 8 November 2010 13:57, Ronan KERDUDOU - VirageGroup
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure to understand all the problem because i don't use maven at all,
The problem is not only with Maven, although that does add other complications.
Suppose you have a project with two dependencies (A, B) on VFS 1.0.
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman wrote:
>> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>
> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
>
> Perhaps someone thought it was needed for the Maven Antrun plugin?
No. VfsTask is based on Ant:
core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/vfs/tasks/VfsT
> -Original Message-
> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
> Behalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 04:46
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Update dependencies?
>
> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>
> On Mon, N
On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman wrote:
>> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
>
> No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Actually, the tasks package uses org.apache.tools.ant (I was looking
for org.apache.ant)
> Perhaps someone thought it was needed
On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman wrote:
> Why do we have a dependency on ant?
No idea - looks like it's not needed.
Perhaps someone thought it was needed for the Maven Antrun plugin?
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:13 AM, sebb wrote:
>> The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
Henning,
it isn't as simple as you believe. See, for example, this thread:
http://marc.info/?t=12825660982&r=1&w=2
The conclusion was, as I read it at the time, that you should expect
that users still have to edit their respective pom files. Which is a
blocker, IMO.
Apart from that, what
sebb wrote:
> The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
>
> ant:ant ... 1.6.2 -> 1.6.5
> commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 -> 3.1
> commons-collections:commons-collections . 3.1 -> 3.2.1
> jav
Hi,
I'm not sure to understand all the problem because i don't use maven at all,
but is it possible to solve your problems by doing 2 releases with a fork :
- VFS V2.0 with java 4 and compatible whith 1.1 (same package)
- VFS2 V1.0 (or V.2.1) with java 5 and no backward compatibility and package
c
"+1 release it"
I don't like using a build named "commons-vfs-20070611.jar" because no
official release exists...
Also, if VFS2 isn't backward compatible and lists all changes to make during
upgrade, we should consider patching FileContentInputStream to return false
in method markSupported()
See h
Why do we have a dependency on ant?
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:13 AM, sebb wrote:
> The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
>
> ant:ant ... 1.6.2 -> 1.6.5
> commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 -> 3.1
> commons-
The following dependencies could potentially be updated:
ant:ant ... 1.6.2 -> 1.6.5
commons-httpclient:commons-httpclient . 3.0 -> 3.1
commons-collections:commons-collections . 3.1 -> 3.2.1
javax.mail:mail
Le 08/11/2010 00:49, er...@apache.org a écrit :
> Author: erans
> Date: Sun Nov 7 23:49:42 2010
> New Revision: 1032424
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1032424&view=rev
> Log:
> MATH-195
> Added requested Javadoc comment.
> Removed unused import.
Fine. Thanks Gilles.
Luc
>
> Modifie
On 8 November 2010 10:37, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>
Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
if DefaultFil
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
>>>
>>> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
>>> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
>>> retur
On 8 November 2010 07:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
>> Behalf Of James Carman
>> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 18:14
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: Backwards incompatible change
sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
>>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to b
On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
>>
>
> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to be for 1.0 here:
>
> ht
On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
>>
>> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
>> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
>> return a FileSystem [1]
>>
>> Can any
sebb wrote:
> Most of the generics fixes have now been done.
>
> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed
> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to
> return a FileSystem [1]
>
> Can anyone else confirm that this is a sensible change?
>
> [1
James Carman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart
>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag.
>>
>
> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to be for 1.0 here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repo
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>
>> Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.5 and the
>> requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
>> LargeTarTestCase has been added to the tes
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Get a relocation in. problem solved. "commons-vfs" ->
> "org.apache.commons". See e.g.
> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/xerces/xerces/2.0.2/xerces-2.0.2.pom on
> how to do that.
Relocations are only of use if the version is upward compatible, otherwise
it's counter
28 matches
Mail list logo
