[GUMP@vmgump]: Project commons-proxy-test (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-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This

[GUMP@vmgump]: Project commons-exec-test (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-exec-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This i

Re: [configuration] Java 1.5 compatibility

Am 08.12.2011 21:30, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Thank you Oliver. Do you also want the tests to be upgraded to JUnit 4? Well, I think this would be nice, but it's not a must IMHO. Going through the tests and fixing the numerous warnings, is probably a good opportunity to actually do the convers

Re: [configuration] Java 1.5 compatibility

Thank you Oliver. Do you also want the tests to be upgraded to JUnit 4? Emmanuel Bourg Le 06/12/2011 22:04, Oliver Heger a écrit : As you may have noticed, I was working on the task of making the code base ready for Java 1.5 (the tests are still missing). I mainly fixed numerous warnings rela

Re: [dbutils] Releasing 1.5

On 8 December 2011 18:59, William Speirs wrote: > Looks like myself, Gary Gregory, Henri Yandell, and Simone Tripodi are > all +1 on requiring Java 1.6. Sebb is a dissenting opinion, but > without an "official" -1. > > When I get a chance, I'm going to change the pom to require Java 1.6 > and make

[VOTE] Release JEXL 2.1 based on RC3

Further to the earlier cancelled RC1 vote, here is an updated release candidate. The main change since RC1 is that all binary incompatibilities have been resolved. Clirr still reports errors for interfaces that have additional methods, but these are false positives, as the changes only affect sou

Re: [VOTE][email] Release Commons Email 1.3 based on RC2

Hi Sebastian, thanks for your help - I will look at commons-email over the weekend. Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl On 08.12.11 00:28, sebb wrote: On 7 December 2011 16:10, sebb wrote: On 6 December 2011 15:38, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: Hi Gary, ad RAT - I added a license header for "mime.types

Re: [dbutils] Releasing 1.5

Looks like myself, Gary Gregory, Henri Yandell, and Simone Tripodi are all +1 on requiring Java 1.6. Sebb is a dissenting opinion, but without an "official" -1. When I get a chance, I'm going to change the pom to require Java 1.6 and make a note in the changes.xml file as well. If that builds with

Re: [dbutils] Releasing 1.5

Hi! > > Reading more, this (getSQLXML) sounds like a good reason to move to Java 1.6. > > DB code is tied to JDBC, which is tied to version of Java. Java 5 is > dead and the only reason I'd heard to consider 5 was Android, which > doesn't feel like it should a big database client codebase. > > So

Re: [digester] providing additional shaded artifact

indeed, all dependencies are ASL licensed and the CGLIB inclusion issue was already faced by Google when repackaging CGLIB inside google-guice (ASL2 licensed) I'll update the notice file ASAP -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/si

Re: [VFS] next release

I think you guys missed what the suggestion was. If it is possible we could just add a subproject to vfs2 that provides the needed glue between the existing providers and the Java 7 api. I would imagine this subproject would only be included when compiling with a java 7 compiler, otherwise it

Re: [VFS] next release

On Dec 8, 2011, at 9:46, sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2011 13:35, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> >>> On 8 December 2011 11:01, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Gary Gregory wrote: >> >>

Re: [VFS] next release

On 8 December 2011 13:35, Jörg Schaible wrote: > sebb wrote: > >> On 8 December 2011 11:01, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >>> sebb wrote: >>> On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi, > > Gary Gregory wrote: > >> I am thinking of a different package name, not j

Re: [VFS] next release

sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2011 11:01, Jörg Schaible > wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> >>> On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: Hi, Gary Gregory wrote: > I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on > Java 7 because we might want to r

Re: [VFS] next release

On 8 December 2011 11:01, Jörg Schaible wrote: > sebb wrote: > >> On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Gary Gregory wrote: >>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based vers

Re: [VFS] next release

On Dec 8, 2011, at 6:01, "Jörg Schaible" wrote: > sebb wrote: > >> On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Gary Gregory wrote: >>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based ve

Re: [VFS] next release

sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Gary Gregory wrote: >> >>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on >>> Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that do >>> break binary compatibility. >>> >>> We can

Re: [VFS] next release

On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi, > > Gary Gregory wrote: > >> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on >> Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that do >> break binary compatibility. >> >> We can retain the VFS name and b