Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Niall, > > I only have the same response I wrote six months ago ... :-) > > +) I can't make any promises but commons-exec is small enough to be > maintained in the small hours when the family is asleep > +) I'm not e

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

1.5.0_15 2008/6/18 Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Brett, > > which java version was being used so I can update the test matrix ... > > Thanks in advance > > Siegfried Goeschl > > Brett Porter wrote: >> >> My results: >> >> Time: 49.106 >> >> OK (55 tests) >> >> -bash-3.00$ uname -a >>

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Hi Brett, which java version was being used so I can update the test matrix ... Thanks in advance Siegfried Goeschl Brett Porter wrote: My results: Time: 49.106 OK (55 tests) -bash-3.00$ uname -a SunOS maven.zones.apache.org 5.10 Generic_127128-11 i86pc i386 i86pc Thanks for all your work

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Siegfried Goeschl > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +) I think that one or two commons developers will use the code and might >> provide additional support if needed > > I'm certainly one

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

You will be the primary support for OpenVMS ... :-) Siegfried Goeschl sebb wrote: On 17/06/2008, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +) I think that one or two commons developers will use the code

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On 17/06/2008, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Siegfried Goeschl > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +) I think that one or two commons developers will use the code and might > > provide additional support if needed > > > I'm certainly one of those.

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +) I think that one or two commons developers will use the code and might > provide additional support if needed I'm certainly one of those. /niklas ---

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Good idea ... Siegfried Goeschl James Carman wrote: For stuff like MapUtils and StringUtils, I'd probably place a comment in there that these are not intended to be part of the public API and could change without warning. On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Hi Niall, I only have the same response I wrote six months ago ... :-) +) I can't make any promises but commons-exec is small enough to be maintained in the small hours when the family is asleep +) I'm not expecting a huge user base - it's too late for that since many in-house libraries are al

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN > there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving > commons-exec to commons proper?! +1 > > The current state of the commons-exec > (http://commons.apache.org/san

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN > there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving > commons-exec to commons proper?! As someone partially to blame for the code

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On 6/13/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have other components with only one active person so IMO its not a > blocker. For me I would hope there is an intention on your part to > stick around and support it - I'm not looking for any kind of promise, > since none of us know

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Siegfried Goeschl a écrit : >> Hi folks, >> >> according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN >> there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving >> commons-exec to commons proper?

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Siegfried Goeschl a écrit : > Hi folks, > > according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN > there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving > commons-exec to commons proper?! I would be very happy to see Exec promoted and released. Luc > > The curren

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN > there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving > commons-exec to commons proper?! > > The current state of the

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

For stuff like MapUtils and StringUtils, I'd probably place a comment in there that these are not intended to be part of the public API and could change without warning. On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > according to http://wiki.apache.or

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

My results: Time: 49.106 OK (55 tests) -bash-3.00$ uname -a SunOS maven.zones.apache.org 5.10 Generic_127128-11 i86pc i386 i86pc Thanks for all your work on this! Cheers, Brett 2008/6/14 Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi James, > > that was quick ... :-) > > +) any Solaris version w

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Well, the machine I setup was an Intel-based machine (pentium 4 I believe), just for playing around with Solaris. This seems like a quick way to get started playing with Solaris! :) It's got JDK1.5 on it right now I believe. I'll try to run the tests tonight when I get home. Or, you could use

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

We also have a zone (Solaris on intel) that can be used to test it. 2008/6/13 James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What version of Solaris needs coverage? I just installed a copy of > Solaris 10 on a machine at home yesterday. I might be able to run the > test there, assuming the test suite runs

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Hi James, that was quick ... :-) +) any Solaris version would do +) the standalone tests suite is here : http://people.apache.org/~sgoeschl/download/commons-exec/ Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl James Carman wrote: What version of Solaris needs coverage? I just installed a copy of Solaris 10 on

Re: [exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

What version of Solaris needs coverage? I just installed a copy of Solaris 10 on a machine at home yesterday. I might be able to run the test there, assuming the test suite runs okay. On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > according to http:

[exec] Proposal - Moving commons-exec from sandbox to proper

Hi folks, according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN there needs to be an official proposal - any blockers from moving commons-exec to commons proper?! The current state of the commons-exec (http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/exec/) +) I made my first bug fix i