--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Might need to set this SVN property:
>
> svn ps svn:eol-style CRLF
> src/java/org/apache/commons/jxpath/ri/parser/jcc.bat
>
> as BAT files need DOS line-endings.
>
> RAT also shows some missing AL headers.
Thanks again, Seb. :)
-Matt
>
> [These were a
Might need to set this SVN property:
svn ps svn:eol-style CRLF src/java/org/apache/commons/jxpath/ri/parser/jcc.bat
as BAT files need DOS line-endings.
RAT also shows some missing AL headers.
[These were against current trunk]
On 20/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do hereby
I do hereby cancel this vote. I also forgot to update
the release notes with the last bug I entered/fixed in
order to get tests (whose breakage only showed up on
JDK1.3) working again. Thanks and apologies to those
who checked out this RC. I think the next one will be
a winner...
-Matt
--- seb
On 18/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because the findbugs results, as well as the minor
> documentation issues that were identified, have
> already been addressed in trunk, it probably doesn't
> make any sense to release 1.3 only to follow it
> immediately with 1.3.1 when the
Because the findbugs results, as well as the minor
documentation issues that were identified, have
already been addressed in trunk, it probably doesn't
make any sense to release 1.3 only to follow it
immediately with 1.3.1 when the content of 1.3.1 is
already known before 1.3 is released. Does any
--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 15/06/2008, Oliver Heger
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > sebb schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > > On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson
> > > <[EMA
On 16/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On 15/06/2008, Oliver Heger
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > sebb schrieb:
> > >
> > > > On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- Oliver Heger
>
--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/06/2008, Oliver Heger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sebb schrieb:
> >
> > > On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- Oliver Heger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Artifacts loo
On 15/06/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb schrieb:
>
> > On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
> > > > commons configura
sebb schrieb:
On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
> commons configuration
> with the new version successfully.
>
> The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy is the
Don't we have a standardized building page? I thought we made that
part of the commons m2 "skin"? I seem to remember us discussing this
at one point. Perhaps it hasn't been done yet.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> If you do roll another RC, it w
+1
If you do roll another RC, it would be good to fix a little typo on the
building page: s/io/jxpath in a couple of places. This should be fixed
before deploying the site, in any case.
Builds, sigs, jar contents, etc. all check out fine. I only tested the
Ant and m2 builds.
Phil
Thank
On 14/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
> > commons configuration
> > with the new version successfully.
> >
> > The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy is the
Matt Benson schrieb:
--- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
commons configuration
with the new version successfully.
The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy is the
findbugs report showing
133 errors. Did you have a look at those?
--- Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for
> commons configuration
> with the new version successfully.
>
> The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy is the
> findbugs report showing
> 133 errors. Did you have a look at those?
>
I
+1
Artifacts look very good. I also ran the tests for commons configuration
with the new version successfully.
The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy is the findbugs report showing
133 errors. Did you have a look at those?
Oliver
Matt Benson schrieb:
Thanks to anyone who reported issue
Artifacts look good to me and I tested on JDK 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6
so +1 from me
Niall
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to anyone who reported issues with the previous
> two release candidates, and especially to those who
> helped resolve them.
>
Thanks for your attention, Sebastian.
--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Thanks to anyone who reported issues with the
> previous
> > two release candidates, and especially to those
> who
> > helped resolve them.
> >
> > The artifa
On 13/06/2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to anyone who reported issues with the previous
> two release candidates, and especially to those who
> helped resolve them.
>
> The artifacts are here:
> http://people.apache.org/~mbenson/jxpath-1.3-rc3/
.asc.md5 and .asc.sha1 sho
Thanks to anyone who reported issues with the previous
two release candidates, and especially to those who
helped resolve them.
The artifacts are here:
http://people.apache.org/~mbenson/jxpath-1.3-rc3/
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/jxpath/tags/JXPATH_1_3_RC3/
Site:
20 matches
Mail list logo