Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Simon Kitching wrote: Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: simon wrote: On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: sebb wrote: AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. In the case of

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > simon wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > >> sebb wrote: > >>> AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > >>> artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. > >>> > >>> In the c

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 9:01 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. Absolutely correct, I interpret as being about the copyright in our source, not things we redistribute. And given

RE: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:50 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release > > Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > I just feel that there is sooo much discussion necessary to pul

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Dennis Lundberg wrote: I just feel that there is sooo much discussion necessary to pull something off here in commons. We have a saying in Sweden that sums it up, but I'm not sure how it works after translation. It goes something like this: "Much talk, but no work" I wish that some of the

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

simon wrote: On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: sebb wrote: AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. In the case of Commons, dependencies are normally not included in the distribution, and

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

simon wrote: On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:20 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: Simon Kitching wrote: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information about

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > sebb wrote: > > AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > > artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. > > > > In the case of Commons, dependencies are normally not included in the > > distribution

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:20 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > Simon Kitching wrote: > > Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > >> On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* > >>> informat

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Simon Kitching wrote: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* *never*

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

sebb wrote: On 10/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] +1 to this sent

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 1:38 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:4

RE: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

> -Original Message- > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:23 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release > > Original Message > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMA

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 10/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Original Message > > > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Coleb

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Original Message > > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > [..] > > > > +1 to this se

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Original Message > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > [..] > > > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating > NOTICE.txt. Th

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating NOTICE.txt. That is our responsibility here in commons. > And I reject the attitude to d

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 3:43 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating > > NOTICE.txt. That is our responsibility here in commons. > > > > +1 And I reject the attitude to

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Original Message > From: Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* > information > > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should > *never* *neve

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

I attached a new pacth to IO-77. It implements Holger Hoffstättesuggestion to use NIO for file copy - when a java 1.4 runtime is available - and relies on buffers on java 1.3. Nico. 2008/1/9, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Original Message From: Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* *never* > have information about files in other maven modules, ie data should

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 9:31 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know that the remote-resources plugin is capable of pulling in a copy of > the LICENSE file from a central location. I don't personally think this is a > good idea, and that checking in a copy manually to each project is bett

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information > > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* > > *never* have inf

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* > *never* have information about files in other maven modules, ie data should

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Jan 10, 2008 8:51 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry to repeat myself again, but I really do not think the > > maven-remote-resources approach is > > even legal. IANAL, but as I understand things, we *must* not use this

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 8:51 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to repeat myself again, but I really do not think the > maven-remote-resources approach is > even legal. IANAL, but as I understand things, we *must* not use this. Simon, I understand your concern to mean, that the NOTIC

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Jan 9, 2008 11:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, not in my opinion. We've agreed to disagree on which way to go with > > this. There are two option, each with its merits and flaws. > > > > A) Use maven-remote-resource

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 1:38 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMA

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: OK so now were down

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > > >>> OK so now were down t

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >>> OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats > >>> done I can cut an RC. > >>>

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 9, 2008 11:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, not in my opinion. We've agreed to disagree on which way to go with > this. There are two option, each with its merits and flaws. > > A) Use maven-remote-resources-plugin > B) Keep manually edited files in SVN and copy them

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 1/9/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=610444 > > > > Thanks - shouldn't we do this in commons-parent pom though, not just for IO? > > No, not in my opinion. We've agreed to disagree on which way to go with > this. There are two o

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats done I can cut an RC. I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I may cut the rc with

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 1/9/08, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 10:39 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks - shouldn't we do this in commons-parent pom though, not just for IO? > > Yes, please! > Makes sense to me as well. -Rahul ---

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 9, 2008 10:39 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks - shouldn't we do this in commons-parent pom though, not just for IO? Yes, please! -- Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. -- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time) -

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats > > done I can cut an RC. > > > > I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I > > may cut the rc with m1, si

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats done I can cut an RC. I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I may cut the rc with m1, since m2 seems to painful ATM (I've spent far too much time battling with m2 recently).

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

OK so now were down to agreeing the exception in IO-77 - once thats done I can cut an RC. I'm starting to think that with the javadoc.jar Notice/License issue I may cut the rc with m1, since m2 seems to painful ATM (I've spent far too much time battling with m2 recently). Niall On Jan 9, 2008 9:

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Hi, On Jan 9, 2008 11:04 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henri and Jukka expressed interest on IO-137 - do you guys > want to / have time to look at this? Let's move it to post-1.4. The reset() issue still needs some thought and probably shouldn't be rushed. BR, Jukka Zitting

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Happy to move IO-137 over to post-1.4. Hen On Jan 9, 2008 1:04 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK looks like were nearly ready for IO 1.4 release - theres a minor > issue to resolve on IO-77[1] so that just leaves IO-137[2] to decide > whether we're going to do anything about for

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

OK looks like were nearly ready for IO 1.4 release - theres a minor issue to resolve on IO-77[1] so that just leaves IO-137[2] to decide whether we're going to do anything about for 1.4 or move it to post-1.4 - Henri and Jukka expressed interest on IO-137 - do you guys want to / have time to look a

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 8, 2008 1:00 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 08/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2008 12:40 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 06/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 6, 2008 6:18 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 08/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 12:40 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 06/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 6, 2008 6:18 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 06/01/2008, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 8, 2008 12:40 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 06/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2008 6:18 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 06/01/2008, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 2

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 06/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2008 6:18 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 06/01/2008, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > On Jan 5, 2008 5:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I woul

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: I'd prefer to keep it as it is since it could be in for more than one release and it means not having to remember to update the OSGi info. Plus anyone wanting to create their own modified custom IO 1.4 version can simply change the pom version number and the OSGi bundle in

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 7, 2008 3:45 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton schrieb: > > On Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Jan 7, 2008 9:34 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton schrieb: On Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 9:34 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta information :) I'll come up w

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2008 9:34 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta information :) > >>> I'll come up with a pa

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 9:34 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta information :) I'll come up with a patch just for 1.4 that does not use the snapshot version of the maven bundle plugin. Int

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 9:34 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta information :) I'll come up with a patch just for 1.4 that does not use the snapshot version of the maven bundle plugin. Interested :) ? Yes please

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 7, 2008 9:34 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta information :) > I'll come up with a patch just for 1.4 that does not use the snapshot > version of the maven bundle plugin. Interested :) ? Yes please Niall > Carsten >

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

I've just attached a new patch for IO-77 with a testcase I'm also added a "moveDirectory" method (with testcase) as suggested in comments. Please review .. and include in 1.4 release ! 2008/1/7, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta inf

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

It would be great if the release contains the OSGi meta information :) I'll come up with a patch just for 1.4 that does not use the snapshot version of the maven bundle plugin. Interested :) ? Carsten Niall Pemberton wrote: I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 6, 2008 6:18 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 06/01/2008, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 2008 5:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking > > >>

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Hi, +1 to Commons IO 1.4! On Jan 6, 2008 4:58 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2008 2:23 AM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think we should deal with IO-137 as it's a minor enhancement and > > comes with tests. I'll volunteer to look at that. > > I looked

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 06/01/2008, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2008 5:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking > >> thru the issues tagged for 1.4 I would suggest the following: > >>

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Henri Yandell wrote: On Jan 5, 2008 5:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking thru the issues tagged for 1.4 I would suggest the following: 1) Resolve the following issues, which all have patches except IO-149 which

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

I reviewed the tasks list, and coded up IO-153 :-) Stephen Niall Pemberton wrote: I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking thru the issues tagged for 1.4 I would suggest the following: 1) Resolve the following issues, which all have patches except IO-149 which is

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 6, 2008 2:33 AM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:52 PM > > To: Commons Developers List > > Subject: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 re

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 6, 2008 2:23 AM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2008 5:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking > > thru the issues tagged for 1.4 I would suggest the following: > > > > 1) Resolve the fo

RE: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

> -Original Message- > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:52 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release > > I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking > thru t

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 5, 2008 5:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking > thru the issues tagged for 1.4 I would suggest the following: > > 1) Resolve the following issues, which all have patches except IO-149 > which is trivial >

[IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

I would like to get an IO 1.4 release out in the near future. Looking thru the issues tagged for 1.4 I would suggest the following: 1) Resolve the following issues, which all have patches except IO-149 which is trivial IO-149 - Make FilenameUtils.EXTENSION_SEPARATOR public IO-105 - Add a FileU