Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Here is my +1 Oliver Am 27.01.2012 22:19, schrieb Oliver Heger: Hi all, this is a vote for releasing Commons Configuration 1.8 based on the first release candidate. Configuration has been updated to support new language features of Java 1.5 (which is now the minimum required JDK version). This

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Oliver Heger wrote: > Hi all, > > this is a vote for releasing Commons Configuration 1.8 based on the > first release candidate. Configuration has been updated to support new > language features of Java 1.5 (which is now the minimum required JDK > version). This could be achieved in a binary comp

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

+1 thanks, Luc Le 01/02/2012 07:05, Simone Tripodi a écrit : > +1 too Oliver, great work! > > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Gary

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

+1 too Oliver, great work! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Oliver Heger > wrote: > >> Hi Gary,

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Oliver Heger wrote: > Hi Gary, > > Am 30.01.2012 22:37, schrieb Gary Gregory: > > Hi Oliver: >> >> These header issues are not real blockers (hence my -0). I was hoping to >> nudge you into fixing these but I also know that cutting another RC can be >> a pain. >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Hi Gary, Am 30.01.2012 22:37, schrieb Gary Gregory: Hi Oliver: These header issues are not real blockers (hence my -0). I was hoping to nudge you into fixing these but I also know that cutting another RC can be a pain. My POV is that consistency is important. Why make people spend time figurin

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Hi Oliver: These header issues are not real blockers (hence my -0). I was hoping to nudge you into fixing these but I also know that cutting another RC can be a pain. My POV is that consistency is important. Why make people spend time figuring out if RAT warnings are valid or not, especially when

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Hi Simone and Gary, thanks for reviewing. Regarding the missing license headers: - project.css is a trivial one-liner, AIUI it is not required to have a header in such cases. - test.plist is a test configuration file used by some unit tests. I would add a header, but I don't know what would be

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

-0 Looks like a couple of missing headers. For me, I see: Unapproved licenses: src/site/xdoc/style/project.css src/test/resources/test.plist I see no complaint about PROPOSAL.html which IS missing a header. Now that the component requires Java 5, it seems like a good time to update the d

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Hello Oliver, I am for getting [configuration] released * binaries checksums+gpg are OK * clirr report is OK * checkstyle is OK * findbugs is OK * project build OK * mvn artifacts look having right metadata (Implementation-Build) there is the RAT report that shows that there are 3 Unknown

[VOTE] Release Configuration 1.8 based on RC1

Hi all, this is a vote for releasing Commons Configuration 1.8 based on the first release candidate. Configuration has been updated to support new language features of Java 1.5 (which is now the minimum required JDK version). This could be achieved in a binary compatible way. Tag: https://sv