On 14 January 2012 08:42, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:09 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 06:00, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:52 AM, sebb wrote:
On 12 January 2012 08:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, sebb wro
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:09 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 06:00, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:52 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2012 08:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl
On 13 January 2012 06:00, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:52 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 January 2012 08:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> the main reason
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:52 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 08:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
Hi folks,
the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the
>>
On 12 January 2012 08:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release
>>> is only source but not binary compatible
>>>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release
>> is only source but not binary compatible
>>
>> +) if you compile your application with the new vers
On 11 January 2012 13:18, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 January 2012 11:42, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, sebb wrote:
> The list is pretty concrete.
> It does not say anything on binary compatibility
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 January 2012 11:42, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, sebb wrote:
The list is pretty concrete.
It does not say anything on binary compatibility (or i didn't find it).
>>>
>>> "Release B is said to be full
On 11 January 2012 07:16, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I think the best for commons-email-1.3 will be reverting the changes of the
> setters from
>
> Email setXXX(arg)
>
> to
>
> void setXXX(arg)
>
> which in turn gives me binary backward compatibility.
There are one or two other chan
On 11 January 2012 11:42, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> The list is pretty concrete.
>>> It does not say anything on binary compatibility (or i didn't find it).
>>
>> "Release B is said to be fully-compatible with Release A if B can
>> simply replac
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, sebb wrote:
>> The list is pretty concrete.
>> It does not say anything on binary compatibility (or i didn't find it).
>
> "Release B is said to be fully-compatible with Release A if B can
> simply replace A in (nearly) all circumstances and deployments without
> c
Hi folks,
I think the best for commons-email-1.3 will be reverting the changes of
the setters from
Email setXXX(arg)
to
void setXXX(arg)
which in turn gives me binary backward compatibility. I would like to
see a commons-email-1.3 out there which gives me time to work on 2.0
Cheers,
Sie
On 10 January 2012 20:04, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 January 2012 19:37, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
Hi folks,
the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 19:37, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release
>>> is only source but not binary co
On 10 January 2012 19:37, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release
>> is only source but not binary compatible
>>
>> +) if you compile your application wit
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release
> is only source but not binary compatible
>
> +) if you compile your application with the new version everything is fine
> +) if you replace simpl
On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release
> is only source but not binary compatible
>
> +) if you compile your application with the new version everything is fine
> +) if you replace simply the J
Hi folks,
the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the
release is only source but not binary compatible
+) if you compile your application with the new version everything is fine
+) if you replace simply the JAR the invocation fails
Is it mandatory that a minor release
On 11 December 2011 22:42, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I ran the commons-email-1.2 test suite with commons-email-1.3 and got
>
> [junit] Running org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
> [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
> [junit] Tests run: 39, Failures: 0, Errors: 17, T
Hi folks,
I ran the commons-email-1.2 test suite with commons-email-1.3 and got
[junit] Running org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
[junit] Testsuite: org.apache.commons.mail.EmailTest
[junit] Tests run: 39, Failures: 0, Errors: 17, Time elapsed: 0.252 sec
[junit] Tests run: 39, Failures: 0, Error
Hi folks,
reviewing the release candidate showed a few problems/discussion points
1) Moving constant from Email.java to EmailConstants,java
==
I made the following change
+) adding EmailConstants
+) Email implements EmailConstants
public interfa
21 matches
Mail list logo
