Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

Everything looks fine, but a mvn site:site fails for me with the error message "Embedded error: conf\findbugs-exclude-filter.xml (File cannot be found.)" This file seems to be missing in the source distribution (there is no conf directory at all). Oliver Matt Benson schrieb: Thanks to anyone

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

Hashes sigs look fine There is an extraneous 'options' file in the apidocs directory and the javadoc jar. The Manifest files in the source and javadoc jars don't contain anything useful. I expect this is a Maven feature, but that does not mean that it is correct ;-) I think the manifests should c

[doc] Commons build and release documentation does not have M2 details

The Commons documentation at: http://commons.apache.org/releases/release.html http://commons.apache.org/building.html only refers to Ant and M1 builds. Is anyone working on documenting the M2 builds? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

Hi Matt, Builds from source and works fine on my compiler zoo except for all IBM-JDKs, but that's a different story (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3580). Some minor issues though in the docs: - download page goes nowhere, I suspect this is caused by the current location and automatically f

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

Forgot to add the path for the POM, just in case you will do another RC. Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Builds from source and works fine on my compiler zoo except for all > IBM-JDKs, but that's a different story > (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3580). > > Some minor issues though in

Re: [doc] Commons build and release documentation does not have M2 details

On 7/5/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Commons documentation at: > > http://commons.apache.org/releases/release.html > http://commons.apache.org/building.html > > only refers to Ant and M1 builds. > > Is anyone working on documenting the M2 builds? > I had offered to write something

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

On 7/5/08, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Issue in the POM: > > - it defines a property "commons.release.version" with value 1.2. This is > used by the download-page-template.xml to generate the download page in > xdocs. Therefore currently all liks are generated for JXPath 1.2.

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

On 05/07/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/5/08, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Issue in the POM: > > > > - it defines a property "commons.release.version" with value 1.2. This is > > used by the download-page-template.xml to generate the download

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

--- Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Forgot to add the path for the POM, just in case you > will do another RC. > So... can you explain again what is the effect of moving [logging] to the separate dependencyManagement section of the POM? Thanks, Matt > Jörg Schaible wrote: > > > Hi

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

--- sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hashes sigs look fine > > There is an extraneous 'options' file in the apidocs > directory and the > javadoc jar. > Noted; will investigate. > The Manifest files in the source and javadoc jars > don't contain anything useful. > I expect this is a Maven fe

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

Hi Matt, Matt Benson wrote: > > --- Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Forgot to add the path for the POM, just in case you >> will do another RC. >> > > So... can you explain again what is the effect of > moving [logging] to the separate dependencyManagement > section of the POM?

Re: [VOTE] Release JXPath 1.3 based on RC4

On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 17:04 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Matt Benson wrote: > > > > > --- Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Forgot to add the path for the POM, just in case you > >> will do another RC. > >> > > > > So... can you explain again what is the effect

Re: svn commit: r674223 - /commons/sandbox/compress/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/compress/AbstractCompressor.java

On 05/07/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Author: bayard > Date: Sat Jul 5 11:45:40 2008 > New Revision: 674223 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=674223&view=rev > Log: > Null protect the stream closing > > Modified: > > commons/sandbox/compress/trunk/src/jav

Re: svn commit: r674223 - /commons/sandbox/compress/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/compress/AbstractCompressor.java

On 05/07/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/07/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Author: bayard > > Date: Sat Jul 5 11:45:40 2008 > > New Revision: 674223 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=674223&view=rev > > Log: > > Null protect the stream

Compress vs. VFS

Hi, I was wondering about VFS vs. Compress. I was looking at a library to handle zip files (mostly read) and came across commons compress in the sandbox. I also made my way to VFS. The latter seems to do as much as the "compress" component and even more. Another good point of VFS is that it doesn

Re: Compress vs. VFS

Hi! What do you guys see being the big difference between the 2 approaches and is that a good enough reason to keep both libraries? VFS contains an old snapshot of compress just to being able to cut a release. Actually, compress is slowly evolving, once this has been finished we will remo

Re: svn commit: r674223 - /commons/sandbox/compress/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/compress/AbstractCompressor.java

Should be fixed. On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/07/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 05/07/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Author: bayard >> > Date: Sat Jul 5 11:45:40 2008 >> > New Revision: 674223 >> > >> > URL: