On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/20/13, 8:09 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Hello All:
> >
> > This is a VOTE to release Commons Codec 1.9-RC1
> >
> > Feature and fix release. Requires a minimum of Java 1.6.
> >
> > Changes in this version include:
> >
> > Performance:
> >
Pool 2.1 RC1 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/
Maven artifacts are here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-019/
Details of changes since 1.6 are in the release notes:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/co
Thank you for cutting the RC Benedikt.
While the Clirr breakage for FastDateFormat is documented as intentional
and 'safe' in the release notes, the first place I looked for information
is the Javadoc, IMO the same information from the release notes could be
duplicated in the Javadoc. The Javadoc
Hi,
I've forked your repo, Thomas and tried the skin out. Looks like you've
fixed the problems with clear. Can we integrate your work into SVN?
Regards,
Benedikt
2013/11/10 Benedikt Ritter
> Nice to see this moving forward. What is next? Can we integrate the
> changes you made in github into
2013/12/23 Oliver Heger
> Am 23.12.2013 10:26, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> > Hello Oilver,
> >
> > thanks for your review and the suggestions.
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/22 Oliver Heger
> >
> >> Hi Benedikt,
> >>
> >> the release notes mention that Lang 3.0 and onwards requires Java 5,
> >> while the 3.
Am 23.12.2013 10:26, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
> Hello Oilver,
>
> thanks for your review and the suggestions.
>
>
> 2013/12/22 Oliver Heger
>
>> Hi Benedikt,
>>
>> the release notes mention that Lang 3.0 and onwards requires Java 5,
>> while the 3.2 release actually needs Java 6. I think this
For my $0.02 I'd say that if the Javadocs are usable it doesn't really
matter. :|
Matt
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Duncan Jones wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2013 18:32, "Matt Benson" wrote:
> >
> > Bene pointed out to me that he did build w/ Java 7; of course the target
> > setting in the POM is
On 23 Dec 2013 18:32, "Matt Benson" wrote:
>
> Bene pointed out to me that he did build w/ Java 7; of course the target
> setting in the POM is the reason the classfiles are Java 6 compatible,
> which is the important thing in any case.
Presumably that means the Javadocs have a Java 7 style? Is t
Bene pointed out to me that he did build w/ Java 7; of course the target
setting in the POM is the reason the classfiles are Java 6 compatible,
which is the important thing in any case.
Matt
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> - RAT report looks okay.
> - I successfully buil
- RAT report looks okay.
- I successfully build the contents of the source artifacts with both Java
6 and Java 7
- I successfully build the contents of the tag
- britter code signing key is in
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
- All sigs and hashes check out
- Binary jars appe
Hi Jörg,
2013/12/23 Jörg Schaible
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know what it is, but for me the download of
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/lang/source/commons-lang3-3.2-src.tar.gzalways
> stops at 71% ... anyone else ?!?
>
Don't know, works on my machine. I'm using Safari on Mac OS
Hi,
I don't know what it is, but for me the download of
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/lang/source/commons-lang3-3.2-src.tar.gz
always stops at 71% ... anyone else ?!?
- Jörg
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant en
+1,
as usual the StringUtilsTest for Utf16 is failing on IBM JDKs, but apart
from that, all other JDKs work properly (incl. Java 8).
- Jörg
Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> This is a VOTE to release Commons Codec 1.9-RC1
>
> Feature and fix release. Requires a minimum of Java 1.6.
>
> C
Hello Oilver,
thanks for your review and the suggestions.
2013/12/22 Oliver Heger
> Hi Benedikt,
>
> the release notes mention that Lang 3.0 and onwards requires Java 5,
> while the 3.2 release actually needs Java 6. I think this has to be
> explicitly stated.
>
Oh, yes! Would probably be bet
14 matches
Mail list logo