RE: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Thank Sebb for your great work! About the Properties instance, I have some personal opinions. I think properties provide a flexible configuration mechanism. Config values could be added and read/written without too much limitation, we also provides default values for each properties, user don't

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Uwe Barthel wrote: > +1 for checkstyle, -1 for any IDE depending files. Fully agreed, if IDE dependenant files are somehow required, or important, for the build. Apart from that: Let's not be overly dogmatic. If such files are out of the way (say, located in src

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

True, Eclipse then creates a .checkstyle file in the project root which we can svn/git ignore. Gary On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Actually, the checkstyle.xml can be imported into both Eclipse and > IntelliJ. I’m not sure about other IDEs. > > Ralph > > > On Jun 27, 2016

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

Actually, the checkstyle.xml can be imported into both Eclipse and IntelliJ. I’m not sure about other IDEs. Ralph > On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Uwe Barthel wrote: > >> +1 >> >> If you do all of them, then we should also add the agree

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Uwe Barthel wrote: > +1 > > If you do all of them, then we should also add the agreed >> checkstyle.xml or equivalent code style file, so that it's easy to >> keep compliance. >> > > +1 for checkstyle, -1 for any IDE depending files. Folks should be able to prov

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

+1 If you do all of them, then we should also add the agreed checkstyle.xml or equivalent code style file, so that it's easy to keep compliance. +1 for checkstyle, -1 for any IDE depending files. -- barthel - To unsubscrib

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted > Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it > there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a > rebuttal to the per

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons Math.

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote: One previous thread on the subject: http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku The final sentence of that thread: "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really. It stands on its own nicely IMO." What more adequate c

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles > wrote: > >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"? >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other? > > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC? At least we can deprecate it

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

And here is another thread from the [lang] perspective: http://markmail.org/message/z6tgpsavegsf2rmx Brent On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Brent Worden wrote: > One previous thread on the subject: > http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku > > > Brent > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM,

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

One previous thread on the subject: http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku Brent On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden wrote: > Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very > topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for > keep

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find the thread if I find time. Brent On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goer

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > +1 go for it. I'm in the unified code style camp. That's why I reformatted > the whole code base of BeanUtils2 a while back. > +1 from me too. Niall > > Kristian Rosenvold schrieb am Mo., 27. Juni 2016 > um > 13:21: > > > 2016-06-27

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles wrote: > >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"? >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other? > > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC? Wh

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles wrote: > Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package > "o.a.c.m.fraction"? > Should one be dropped in favour of the other? *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC? Sorry, Jochen -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" htt

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

+1 if the code is messy or inconsistent, -0 if it's already OK. Personally I wouldn't do the whole code, just tidy in a separate commit per file before editing it. If you do all of them, then we should also add the agreed checkstyle.xml or equivalent code style file, so that it's easy to keep com

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Jun 27, 2016 1:09 AM, "Kristian Rosenvold" wrote: > > This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep > it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even > within individual code files. > > Once the move to git completes, I'd like to reformat the entire cod

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:18 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >> This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep >> it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even >> within individual code files. >> >> Once the move

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

We reformat and reorganize all the time in log4j and we've never lost track of where things came from. Maybe git is smarter than svn about this? On 27 June 2016 at 05:18, sebb wrote: > On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold > wrote: > > This has probably been discussed a million times bef

Re: Is JIRA down?

Oh cool, thanks for the info. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:46 AM, sebb wrote: > Seems OK now. > > In future, please note that system problems are usually noted here: > > http://status.apache.org/ > > Note that have been ongoing temporary JIRA connectivity issues. > So it's always worth trying again

回复:Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

hi, i am interested in the refactor the code , i want to know what can i do you for you ,expect your reply . thanks a lot . At 2016-06-27 20:10:20, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote: >+1 go for it. I'm in the unified code style camp. That's why I reformatted >the whole code base of BeanUtils2 a while

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

+1 go for it. I'm in the unified code style camp. That's why I reformatted the whole code base of BeanUtils2 a while back. Kristian Rosenvold schrieb am Mo., 27. Juni 2016 um 13:21: > 2016-06-27 12:18 GMT+02:00 sebb : > > This causes lots of grief when trying to track where a particular > > sect

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

2016-06-27 12:18 GMT+02:00 sebb : > This causes lots of grief when trying to track where a particular > section of code was introduced. Tooling has moved on, I'm really not sure this argument is particularly relevant for a git repository. If I want to track provenance I'd use git pickaxe or simila

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:18:19 +0100, sebb wrote: On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even within individual code files. Once the move to git comple

Re: [VOTE] New component: Standard math functions

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 03:55:35 + (UTC), venkatesha m wrote: Does this use Java 8? What is "this"? If you want to discuss (rather than vote), please start a new thread. Thank you, Gilles On Monday, 27 June 2016 2:20 AM, Gilles wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:13:06 -0400, Rob Tompkin

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep > it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even > within individual code files. > > Once the move to git completes, I'd like to reformat the entire code >

Early Access builds of JDK 8u112 b01, JDK 9 b124 are available on java.net

Hi Benedikt, Early Access b124 for JDK 9 is available on java.net, summary of changes are listed here . Early Access b123 (#5178) for JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw i

Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even within individual code files. Once the move to git completes, I'd like to reformat the entire code base (including javadoc) to a single style. I don't really care