On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:21:32 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/28/14 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:43:34 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 28/12/2014 00:22, sebb a écrit :
On 27 December 2014 at 22:19, Gilles
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 17:48:05 +, sebb wrote:
On 24 Dec
FYI: I have created INFRS-8949 [1], because the github mirror of imaging at
https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging doesn't seem to sync anymore.
Regards,
Benedikt
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8949
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http:
Guys, you should really move the project to git :-)
2014-12-28 23:10 GMT+01:00 Kristian Rosenvold :
>
> Stefan, I looked at your changes in the github repo
> https://github.com/bodewig/commons-compress/commits/scatter-backing-store
>
> I think they look great. Please commit them :)
>
> Kristian
>
On 29 December 2014 at 10:36, Gilles wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:21:32 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>> On 12/28/14 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:43:34 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 28/12/2014 00:22, sebb a écrit :
>
> On 27 December 2014
Nice!
2014-12-29 1:43 GMT+01:00 :
>
> Author: adrianc
> Date: Mon Dec 29 00:43:22 2014
> New Revision: 1648274
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1648274
> Log:
> Added IPv6 validation to Validator, also fixed a bug in IPv4 validation.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VALIDATOR-307
>
> Modif
Hi all,
following the example of [lang] I've created new versions in JIRA to stream
line the contribution and review process:
- Patch needed
- Review
- Discussion
I've also updated all open issues.
Regards,
Benedikt
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://
On 2014-12-28, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> Stefan, I looked at your changes in the github repo
> https://github.com/bodewig/commons-compress/commits/scatter-backing-store
> I think they look great. Please commit them :)
Done
Stefan
--
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have received some requests to release the fixes we habe implemented in
> Commons Validator since 1.4 was released, so I would like to release
> Validator 1.4.1. Validator 1.4.1 RC1 is available for review here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commo
Jörg Schaible wrote:
[snip]
> -1
>
> The release claims to be Java 1.4 compatible, but you cannot build it for
> that JDK, because of commons-beanutils-1.9.x:
>
[snip]
Minor nit: The release notes do not mention the minimum JDK version at all.
- Jörg
---
Hi All,
I am new to Open Source Development. I’ve been part of various Java, J2EE,
WebServices (SOAP,Rest), Spring based projects. I’ve some questions regarding
project life cycle at ASF. Kindly spare some time to answer the following:
How a new project is initiated at ASF.
How the project requi
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We have received some requests to release the fixes we habe implemented
> in
> > Commons Validator since 1.4 was released, so I would like to release
> > Validator 1.4.1. Validator 1.4.1 RC1 is ava
Hi All:
There seems to be a constant background desire of moving this and that
Commons component to Git. Moving all of Commons to Git feels like too much
but I encourage Git 'pushers' (pun intended) to just bring up a VOTE for a
component and move the process along if you care about Git.
Gary
--
On 2014-12-29, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> The refactoring os ZipArchiveOutputStream to use StreamCompressor is now done
> in
> the branch https://github.com/krosenvold/commons-compress
Some code comments:
* the fields writtenToOutputStream, sourcePayloadLength and actualCrc in
StreamCompress
On 2014-12-29, Gary Gregory wrote:
> but I encourage Git 'pushers' (pun intended) to just bring up a VOTE for a
> component and move the process along if you care about Git.
Just as a "letter of intent" - I'd prefer to cut Compress 1.10 while
we're still in svn (as I know how to do it, I'm in the
Welcome Sumit Gaur!
On 2014-12-29, Sumit Gaur wrote:
> I am new to Open Source Development. I’ve been part of various Java,
> J2EE, WebServices (SOAP,Rest), Spring based projects. I’ve some
> questions regarding project life cycle at ASF. Kindly spare some time
> to answer the following:
This is
Hello,
not sure if this is the right list to discuss global policies, but
there are global policies by the ASF, which you can find here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
http://www.apache.org/dev/
and there are project (Apache Commons) specific guidelines here:
http://co
On 29 December 2014 at 13:52, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
>> Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We have received some requests to release the fixes we habe implemented
>> in
>> > Commons Validator since 1.4 was released, so I would
On 12/29/2014 04:21 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/28/14 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:43:34 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 28/12/2014 00:22, sebb a écrit :
On 27 December 2014 at 22:19, Gilles
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 17:48:05 +, sebb wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:04 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 December 2014 at 13:52, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Jörg Schaible
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > We have received some requests to release the fixes we habe
> implemen
On 12/27/2014 12:54 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Changes since RC1:
> * Made POOL-259 tests less sensitive to system clock resolution
> * Moved LinkedBlockingDeque original PD license reference from
> NOTICE to LICENSE
>
> Tag: (r1648018)
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/tags/POO
+1, build fine with my compiler zoo (incl. Java 9)
Phil Steitz wrote:
> Changes since RC1:
> * Made POOL-259 tests less sensitive to system clock resolution
> * Moved LinkedBlockingDeque original PD license reference from
> NOTICE to LICENSE
>
> Tag: (r1648018)
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/a
The download page of apache commons reads like there is supposed to be
a KEYS column in the table. But it is now a general link, so I would
apply the following changes, if you agree:
===
--- src/main/resources/commons-xdoc-templates/d
On 29 December 2014 at 19:48, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> The download page of apache commons reads like there is supposed to be
> a KEYS column in the table. But it is now a general link, so I would
> apply the following changes, if you agree:
I think the reference to the KEYS file needs to come be
Am Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:01:29 +
schrieb sebb :
> On 29 December 2014 at 19:48, Bernd Eckenfels
> wrote:
> > The download page of apache commons reads like there is supposed to
> > be a KEYS column in the table. But it is now a general link, so I
> > would apply the following changes, if you ag
On 29 December 2014 at 20:13, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Am Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:01:29 +
> schrieb sebb :
>
>> On 29 December 2014 at 19:48, Bernd Eckenfels
>> wrote:
>> > The download page of apache commons reads like there is supposed to
>> > be a KEYS column in the table. But it is now a gene
Am Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:01:29 +
schrieb sebb :
> On 29 December 2014 at 19:48, Bernd Eckenfels
> wrote:
> > The download page of apache commons reads like there is supposed to
> > be a KEYS column in the table. But it is now a general link, so I
> > would apply the following changes, if you ag
Hello sebb,
ok I can amend my changes to add this. I will wait a day to see if more
issues come up.
I was trying to be brief as we have the validation
page explaining all, but it might be good to be a bit verbose here.
Gruss
Bernd
Am Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:51:21 +
schrieb sebb :
> On 29 Dec
Hi,
2014-12-26 16:00 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter :
>
> Hello,
>
> We have received some requests to release the fixes we habe implemented in
> Commons Validator since 1.4 was released, so I would like to release
> Validator 1.4.1. Validator 1.4.1 RC1 is available for review here:
> https://dist.apac
2014-12-29 14:56 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
>
> Hi All:
>
> There seems to be a constant background desire of moving this and that
> Commons component to Git. Moving all of Commons to Git feels like too much
> but I encourage Git 'pushers' (pun intended) to just bring up a VOTE for a
> component and
Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:26:46 +0100
schrieb Benedikt Ritter :
> How about making it a vote by lazy consensus?
I would start one for VFS (after the 2.1 release).
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apach
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:54:59 +, sebb wrote:
On 29 December 2014 at 10:36, Gilles
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:21:32 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/28/14 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:43:34 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 28/12/2014 00:22, sebb a écrit :
On 27
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2014-12-29 14:56 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> >
> > Hi All:
> >
> > There seems to be a constant background desire of moving this and that
> > Commons component to Git. Moving all of Commons to Git feels like too
> much
> > but I encourage G
That thread gets deep. :)
I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that, most
release delay/time is due to preparation work. Failed (binary) checks
are typically for a reason which would also be present in the source
(especially the POM)
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:21:05 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 12/29/2014 04:21 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/28/14 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:43:34 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 28/12/2014 00:22, sebb a écrit :
On 27 December 2014 at 22:19, Gilles
wrote:
On Sat, 27
On 30 December 2014 at 01:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
>> 2014-12-29 14:56 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
>> >
>> > Hi All:
>> >
>> > There seems to be a constant background desire of moving this and that
>> > Commons component to Git. Moving all o
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
That thread gets deep. :)
I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that, most
release delay/time is due to preparation work. Failed (binary) checks
are typically for a reason w
Hello,
Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
schrieb Gilles :
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > That thread gets deep. :)
> >
> > I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
> > source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that, most
> > release delay/time
On 30 December 2014 at 01:29, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>
>> That thread gets deep. :)
>>
>> I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
>> source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that, most
>> release delay/time is due to prepara
On 30 December 2014 at 01:36, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
> schrieb Gilles :
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> > That thread gets deep. :)
>> >
>> > I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
>> > source is faster because
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:36:24 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
schrieb Gilles :
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> That thread gets deep. :)
>
> I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
> source is faster because of less checks
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:48:20 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:36, Bernd Eckenfels
wrote:
Hello,
Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
schrieb Gilles :
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> That thread gets deep. :)
>
> I just wanted to comment on "releasing on
On 30 December 2014 at 02:06, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:48:20 +, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 30 December 2014 at 01:36, Bernd Eckenfels
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
>>> schrieb Gilles :
>>>
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels w
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:38:12 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:29, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
That thread gets deep. :)
I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that,
most
r
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:12:51 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 02:06, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:48:20 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:36, Bernd Eckenfels
wrote:
Hello,
Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
schrieb Gilles :
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +010
On 30 December 2014 at 02:40, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:38:12 +, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 30 December 2014 at 01:29, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
That thread gets deep. :)
I just wanted to comment on "releas
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:27 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 December 2014 at 01:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
> >
> >> 2014-12-29 14:56 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> >> >
> >> > Hi All:
> >> >
> >> > There seems to be a constant background desire of
On 30 December 2014 at 03:05, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:12:51 +, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 30 December 2014 at 02:06, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:48:20 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:36, Bernd Eckenfels
wrote:
>
>
> Hello
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:05:57 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 02:40, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:38:12 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:29, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
That thread gets deep. :)
I just wanted to
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:22:32 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 03:05, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:12:51 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 02:06, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:48:20 +, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:36, Bernd Eckenfels
wrote
49 matches
Mail list logo
