On 2013-11-29, dam6923 . wrote:
> Is there any policy in place or method already laid out for putting
> bounties on certain task items? In particular, I could chip something
> in for the following two tickets:
What Phil said.
> 1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-88
> 2) https://i
On 11/28/13, 9:26 PM, dam6923 . wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any policy in place or method already laid out for putting
> bounties on certain task items?
You are obviously free to do whatever you want as an individual or
as part of $dayjob or other means to connect people wanting to get
paid to w
Hello,
Is there any policy in place or method already laid out for putting
bounties on certain task items? In particular, I could chip something
in for the following two tickets:
1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-88
2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-238
Both are
On 28 November 2013 12:34, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 28/11/2013 13:01, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> This backward IMO and an anti-pattern: an interface should only define a
>> contract for a service, not constants.
>
> I know, but that's more idiomatic than a class with only public static
> final f
Am 28.11.2013 09:05, schrieb Thomas Neidhart:
> On 11/28/2013 04:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> Vote closed, results were:
>>
>> +1:
>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>
>> No other votes were cast.
>>
>> Vote fails since majority approval needs at least 3 votes of +1 ->
>> aborting release.
>
> Hi Damjan,
It's seems quite redundant.
Gary
Original message
From: Damjan Jovanovic
Date:11/28/2013 02:45 (GMT-05:00)
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1546303 - in
/commons/proper/imaging/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging:
common/ common/bytesou
Le 28/11/2013 14:28, luc a écrit :
>> If the "reference" repository is controlled by Git, could it be possible
>> to use svn commands too? Or would it be too complicated to install the
>> translation tools?
>
> I don't known about any way to use svn commands on git repository.
Github has a svn
Le 2013-11-28 13:19, Gilles a écrit :
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:50:08 +, sebb wrote:
On 27 November 2013 13:37, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 27/11/2013 13:47, Gilles a écrit :
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:44:27 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 27/11/2013 12:13, Gilles a écrit :
I'm only a bit worried
Le 28/11/2013 13:01, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> This backward IMO and an anti-pattern: an interface should only define a
> contract for a service, not constants.
I know, but that's more idiomatic than a class with only public static
final fields.
The class is private now, so it doesn't matter muc
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:50:08 +, sebb wrote:
On 27 November 2013 13:37, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 27/11/2013 13:47, Gilles a écrit :
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:44:27 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 27/11/2013 12:13, Gilles a écrit :
I'm only a bit worried about the timing, and whether
knowledg
This backward IMO and an anti-pattern: an interface should only define a
contract for a service, not constants.
Gary
Original message
From: ebo...@apache.org
Date:11/28/2013 05:41 (GMT-05:00)
To: comm...@commons.apache.org
Subject: svn commit: r1546339 -
/commons/prope
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> "Rationale: each instance variable gets initialized twice, to the same
> value. Java initializes each instance variable to its default value (0
> or null) before performing any initialization specified in the code. So
> in this case, x gets
2013/11/28 sebb
> On 28 November 2013 08:05, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
> > On 11/28/2013 04:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> >> Vote closed, results were:
> >>
> >> +1:
> >> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>
> >> No other votes were cast.
> >>
> >> Vote fails since majority approval needs at least 3 votes of
On 28 November 2013 08:05, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 11/28/2013 04:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> Vote closed, results were:
>>
>> +1:
>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>
>> No other votes were cast.
>>
>> Vote fails since majority approval needs at least 3 votes of +1 ->
>> aborting release.
>
> Hi Damja
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 28/11/2013 08:45, Damjan Jovanovic a écrit :
>> Why? I've heard initializing fields, even to their defaults, is a good
>> practice and makes code clearer.
>
> This style is applied to several components, it's reported by the
> ExplicitInitialization checkstyle rule:
>
Le 28/11/2013 08:45, Damjan Jovanovic a écrit :
> Why? I've heard initializing fields, even to their defaults, is a good
> practice and makes code clearer.
This style is applied to several components, it's reported by the
ExplicitInitialization checkstyle rule:
http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/c
On 11/28/2013 04:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Vote closed, results were:
>
> +1:
> Damjan Jovanovic
>
> No other votes were cast.
>
> Vote fails since majority approval needs at least 3 votes of +1 ->
> aborting release.
Hi Damjan,
sorry that this vote failed, and I hope you still continue
17 matches
Mail list logo
