The NOTICE file at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1/NOTICE.txt
looks wrong just by the fact that it points to another non-existent file:
This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation.
See the LICENSE.xerox file.
There is no LICENSE.
They are not, at least what you noted is not blocking and now clean up for
futures releases
Le 29 janv. 2015 00:45, "sebb" a écrit :
> On 28 January 2015 at 20:46, Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
> > Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
> > to a mac I'm at least twice
On 28 January 2015 at 20:46, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
> to a mac I'm at least twice slower cause of it).
>
> BTW I'll remove aspectj dir on trunk.
>
> About Java 8: while it is javadoc only I think we don't care - in
> particu
On 28 January 2015 at 20:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 27/01/15 17:11, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> I agree that "local scope" should be clarified
>
>
> "local scope" is a piece of terminology used only for RDF syntax. Once away
> from syntax, there is no "scope" to a blank node.
>
> It is de
Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
to a mac I'm at least twice slower cause of it).
BTW I'll remove aspectj dir on trunk.
About Java 8: while it is javadoc only I think we don't care - in
particular since we can't release building with a java 8 JVM while we
don't
On 28.01.15 20:39, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello Romain,
>
> I've looked at the RC.
>
> - Signs and hashes are good
> - builds find with maven 3.2.5 and Java 6 and 7, although the build of the
> core takes forever... The build fails with Java 8 (I've run mvn clean
> verify). It looks like it's t
2015-01-28 19:30 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter :
> Hello Stefan,
>
> - I've build this RC with Maven 3.2.5 and Java 6, 7, 8 and 9 EA. Java 6, 7
> and 8 work fine (although the site can not be build with Java 8 due to
> doclint). Java 9 fails, because it does not support target option 1.5.
I just fixed
On 26.01.15 12:19, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
>
> @Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
I don't even know if it actually works with the current code. It was
like this when I got here (TM). I'd suggest to remove the aspe
Hello Romain,
I've looked at the RC.
- Signs and hashes are good
- builds find with maven 3.2.5 and Java 6 and 7, although the build of the
core takes forever... The build fails with Java 8 (I've run mvn clean
verify). It looks like it's trying to create the JavaDocs but that fails
because of doc
Hello Stefan,
- I've build this RC with Maven 3.2.5 and Java 6, 7, 8 and 9 EA. Java 6, 7
and 8 work fine (although the site can not be build with Java 8 due to
doclint). Java 9 fails, because it does not support target option 1.5.
- Signs and hashes look good.
- Site looks good
Here are a few thi
Commons Parent 37 has been released.
The main changes are:
* addition of Animal Sniffer (profile: animal-sniffer) which is
enabled by default.
* site-basic profile which disables as many reports etc as possible to
make it easy to test component documentation
* updates to plugin versions
Release
72 hours have elapsed with no objections, so the lazy consensus vote passes.
The staging repo will be published shortly.
On 27 January 2015 at 14:07, sebb wrote:
> It's Clirr Report as far as I can tell.
>
> On 27 January 2015 at 14:04, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> 2015-01-27 14:50 GMT+01:00 sebb
Hi everybody,
after the intense discussions last weeks, this week we're coming down to
what could be a suitable approach for Commons RDF.
Summarizing, we understand that the Apache Commons project wants to keep
the communication rules as they currently are. Though we think that in
this phase
On 1/28/15 6:40 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> I prefer {@link Connection Connections}. Looks better in the javadoc report.
Fine by me.
Phil
>
> Benedikt
>
> 2015-01-28 14:27 GMT+01:00 :
>
>> Author: psteitz
>> Date: Wed Jan 28 13:27:51 2015
>> New Revision: 1655299
>>
>> URL: http://s
Hi Phil,
I prefer {@link Connection Connections}. Looks better in the javadoc report.
Benedikt
2015-01-28 14:27 GMT+01:00 :
> Author: psteitz
> Date: Wed Jan 28 13:27:51 2015
> New Revision: 1655299
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1655299
> Log:
> Javadoc typo.
>
> Modified:
>
> commons/proper/
On 27/01/15 17:11, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
I agree that "local scope" should be clarified
"local scope" is a piece of terminology used only for RDF syntax. Once
away from syntax, there is no "scope" to a blank node.
It is described in:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-blank-n
16 matches
Mail list logo
