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-vfs2-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This 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-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
Sorry, I was on my phone before when I sent that. Let me elaborate a
bit more. I would just allow the weights to be of any type. However,
you can create two different types of scenarios where you either use a
Comparable derivative or you use whatever you want, but you have to
supply a custom Com
Looks like it worked!
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL
[INFO]
[INFO] Total time: 25 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Mon Dec 12 01:33:42 UTC 2011
Bill-
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 December 2011 00:37, Bill Speir
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
I wouldn't restrict the weight to Comparable. What if the user wanted to
provide their own Comparator?
On Dec 11, 2011 7:07 PM, "Claudio Squarcella"
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I explored a bit more the (rather philosophical) dilemma that came from a
> thread from last week, quoted below
>
>> One step
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=15740&projectId=74
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Mon 12 Dec 2011 00:46:48 +
Finished at: Mon 12 Dec 2011 00:47:24 +
Total time: 36s
Build Trigger: Fo
On 12 December 2011 00:37, Bill Speirs wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM, sebb wrote:
>> You changed the pom to require a minimum of Java 1.6, but the
>> Continuum build has yet to be updated.
>
> How should I have updated the Continuum build?
Continuum is not exactly easy to configure (*
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM, sebb wrote:
> You changed the pom to require a minimum of Java 1.6, but the
> Continuum build has yet to be updated.
How should I have updated the Continuum build?
Thanks for the help...
Bill-
On 8 December 2011 19:44, sebb wrote:
> 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 the
On 11 December 2011 19:27, William Speirs wrote:
> Clearly I did something wrong:
> http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?projectId=74&projectName=&buildId=15727&projectGroupId=0
You changed the pom to require a minimum of Java 1.6, but the
Continuum build has yet to be updated.
On 11 December 2011 22:42, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I ran the commons-email-1.2 test suite with commons-email-1.3 and got
>
> [junit] Running org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
> [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
> [junit] Tests run: 39, Failures: 0, Errors: 17, T
Hi all,
I explored a bit more the (rather philosophical) dilemma that came from
a thread from last week, quoted below
One step further. A weight is not necessarily a double: in some cases
not even a number, but rather a "comparable" of some sort. So I would
suggest to make use of generics in s
Hi folks,
I ran the commons-email-1.2 test suite with commons-email-1.3 and got
[junit] Running org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
[junit] Testsuite: org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
[junit] Tests run: 39, Failures: 0, Errors: 17, Time elapsed: 0.252 sec
[junit] Tests run: 39, Failures: 0, Error
poor me, I wonder why an RC is never perfect :'(
Thanks for the deep review, alles gute!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Oliver Heger
wrote:
> Am 11.12.
Hi folks,
reviewing the release candidate showed a few problems/discussion points
1) Moving constant from Email.java to EmailConstants,java
==
I made the following change
+) adding EmailConstants
+) Email implements EmailConstants
public interfa
Am 11.12.2011 18:43, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
Hello!!!
@Oliver: thanks for reviewing! can you tell me please where did you
notice about 3.0 in the release note? I was sure I fixed it on both
/trunk and RC, see[1]... Thanks!!
The version in [1] is alright. But then it seems that the binary and
On checkstyle, 3 of them are empty statements that are known - been there for
long - and the other are Javadoc on deprecated methods introduced to ensure
binary compatibility.
On PMD, I've never tried to configure it correctly; there was already a lot
of clutter in 1.1...
A lot of the issues come
Clearly I did something wrong:
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?projectId=74&projectName=&buildId=15727&projectGroupId=0
Also, how can I manually kick-off a contunuum build and/or simulate
that environment on my computer? It builds and tests without error on
my system.
Thank
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/11/11 11:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> FYI: Commons parent makes sure that M2 and M3 works, if you use a recent CP
>>> version that is.
>> Thanks for the hint, didn't know
On 12/11/11 11:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> checked sigs, site, opened all that stuff, runned test... looks all ok so
>>> far.
>>> Not providing a test j
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> checked sigs, site, opened all that stuff, runned test... looks all ok so
>> far.
>> Not providing a test jar is ok for me (or is this a Commons poilicy??
>> have mis
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> +1
>
> checked sigs, site, opened all that stuff, runned test... looks all ok so
> far.
> Not providing a test jar is ok for me (or is this a Commons poilicy??
> have missed it somehow) as I can run the tests from the provided src
> pa
+1
checked sigs, site, opened all that stuff, runned test... looks all ok so far.
Not providing a test jar is ok for me (or is this a Commons poilicy??
have missed it somehow) as I can run the tests from the provided src
package.
On Garys comments with M2/M3:
Tests can be run from the source pack
Hello!!!
@Oliver: thanks for reviewing! can you tell me please where did you
notice about 3.0 in the release note? I was sure I fixed it on both
/trunk and RC, see[1]... Thanks!!
@Paul: looks like the 'Gigester' name is getting more success than the
Digester itself :D
All the best,
-Simo
[1] ht
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/11/11 6:28 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:31 PM, sebb wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11 December 2011 00:29, Phil Steitz wrote:
> This is a p
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=15727&projectId=74
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sun 11 Dec 2011 17:41:41 +
Finished at: Sun 11 Dec 2011 17:41:57 +
Total time: 15s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Here is my +1
Could use a couple of more so the bug fixes can go out and we can
proceed to a patch release for [dbcp] 1.3/1.4.
Phil
On 12/10/11 5:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> This is a patch release, including a couple of bug fixes.
>
> The release artifacts are here:
> http://people.apache.org/
Any product called the Gigester gets my +1 vote!
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> +1
>
> Build works fine with Java 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts and site look good.
>
> One minor nit: In the release notes the following recommended dependencies
> are listed:
> "The Recommend
On 12/11/11 6:28 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:31 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 December 2011 00:29, Phil Steitz wrote:
This is a patch release, including a couple of bug fixes.
The release artifact
+1
Build works fine with Java 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts and site look good.
One minor nit: In the release notes the following recommended
dependencies are listed:
"The Recommended Dependency Set for Digester 3.0 is:
Digester 3.1 + Logging 1.1.1 + BeanUtils 1.8.3"
This is a bit confusing
+1
I'm not worried about source compatibility issues, I join Gary on
checkstyle/PMD observations
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
+1
Note: There is an alarming number of PMD issues reported. A lot of these
look like they are in generated code, but not all. Has this been mentioned?
Non-blockers:
- Some Javadoc checkstyle errors.
- Findbugs oddities.
Tested m3 'clean site' with:
Apache Maven 3.0.3 (r1075438; 2011-02-28 12:
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
+1
I'm not crazy happy about the one Clirr error but it seems to have been
explained away satisfactorily.
Non-blockers:
- "TM" in logo is too big IMO.
- Some easy PMDs to fix:
- Overriding method merely calls super
- Avoid unused private methods such as 'npeSafeCast(Object)'.
Tested m3 "cle
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2011, at 6:31 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > On 11 December 2011 00:29, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> This is a patch release, including a couple of bug fixes.
> >>
> >> The release artifacts are here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~pste
+1 looks good to me
have checked sigs, opened the stuff, looked at license, notice etc.
API docs do contain not all of the copyright statements as on the
website (as discussed in the digester vote).
Cheers,
Christian
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> Further to the earlier cancelled
On 11 December 2011 12:42, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Just curious - jexl is releasing tests? Why that?
> commons-jexl-2.1-tests.jar
It was decided a while ago to add these to make it easier to check
binary compatibility between versions.
Simpler to create the test jars at the same time, rathe
Just curious - jexl is releasing tests? Why that?
commons-jexl-2.1-tests.jar
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-298/org/apache/commons/commons-jexl/2.1/
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> Further to the earlier cancelled RC1 vote, here is an updated
>
> If it is necessary, hopefully it can be added to Commons Parent.>
+1 javadoc plugin allows custom footers[1], should not be a big deal.
Waiting for your +1, Seb ;)
best,
-Simo
[1]
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin/javadoc-mojo.html#footer
http://people.apache.org/~simonet
On 11 December 2011 11:24, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Simone Tripodi
> wrote:
>> [X] +1 release it
>
> Checked sigs/checksums, looked at the site, opened stuff et al worked
> all very well for me.
> License is included in LICENSE.txt, NOTICE looks correct (as ex
This is my explicit +1
Thanks a lot for reviewing Christian!!!
have a nice WE,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> On Sat, De
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> [X] +1 release it
Checked sigs/checksums, looked at the site, opened stuff et al worked
all very well for me.
License is included in LICENSE.txt, NOTICE looks correct (as explained
by Sebbs link).
Just one minor thing, which is not a block
On 9 December 2011 13:53, sebb wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 13:52, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 9 December 2011 12:10, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yes, it's time for
On 11 December 2011 10:04, henrib wrote:
> +1
>
> The tag is actually
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jexl/tags/COMMONS_JEXL_2_1-RC3/
Oops, sorry.
.
> There is one minor error in the Javadoc (interpreter visit FloatLiteral /
> IntegerLiteral) but since these are deprecated, it
+1
The tag is actually
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jexl/tags/COMMONS_JEXL_2_1-RC3/
.
There is one minor error in the Javadoc (interpreter visit FloatLiteral /
IntegerLiteral) but since these are deprecated, it has no importance.
Otherwise, everything looks good to me.
Thanks S
46 matches
Mail list logo
