Technically we do need a new release vote since:
a) The released source will not be exactly the same (due to the version
bump).
b) The convenience binaries will be different (due to fixing the
corruption).
We need the vote to make the release an act of the foundation.
We can make the vote as sh
Le 28/05/2015 09:14, Mark Thomas a écrit :
> Technically we do need a new release vote since:
>
> a) The released source will not be exactly the same (due to the version
> bump).
>
> b) The convenience binaries will be different (due to fixing the
> corruption).
>
> We need the vote to make the
On 28/05/2015 09:02, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 28/05/2015 09:14, Mark Thomas a écrit :
>> Technically we do need a new release vote since:
>>
>> a) The released source will not be exactly the same (due to the version
>> bump).
>>
>> b) The convenience binaries will be different (due to fixing the
>
I suppose we can't overwrite what's there?
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:14 AM Mark Thomas wrote:
> Technically we do need a new release vote since:
>
> a) The released source will not be exactly the same (due to the version
> bump).
>
> b) The convenience binaries will be different (due to fixing th
Hi
I think, I know the reason, I've had similar problem.
This commit
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/pool/trunk/pom.xml?view=diff&r1=1680128&r2=1680129&pathrev=1680129
upgraded cobertura plugin's version to 2.7.
There is new, VERY "DANGEROUS" reporting mojo in 2.7 -
"cobertura-integr
Hello,
I implemented 2 null safe methods to replace into a String with regular
expression :
- String replaceAll(String text, String regex, String replacement);
- String replaceFirst(String text, String regex, String replacement);
The StringUtils.replacePattern(String source, String regex, Str
On 5/28/15 6:47 AM, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think, I know the reason, I've had similar problem.
>
> This commit
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/pool/trunk/pom.xml?view=diff&r1=1680128&r2=1680129&pathrev=1680129
> upgraded cobertura plugin's version to 2.7.
>
> There is
On 28 May 2015 at 11:46, James Carman wrote:
> I suppose we can't overwrite what's there?
AFAIK, one can just re-release 2.4.
Still needs a vote IMO.
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:14 AM Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> Technically we do need a new release vote since:
>>
>> a) The released source will not
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:56 PM sebb wrote:
>
> Still needs a vote IMO.
>
>
Yes, if the binaries we voted on were actually corrupt and it wasn't
something that got corrupt during transfer, then we need to re-build the
binaries and re-vote on them.
Since the bad jars are percolating through mirrors or have already done so,
I do not see another choice but releasing a 2.4.1.
Gary
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:13 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:56 PM sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > Still needs a vote IMO.
> >
> >
> Yes, if the binari
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2015-05-25 8:07 GMT+02:00 Bruno P. Kinoshita :
>
> > Thanks for clarifying Niall.
> >
> > I'll try to fix the tests, and will try to generate the Maven site and
> the
> > tags documentation.
> > Probably I'll update the commons-parent vers
I burned the time I had last night trying to figure out what was going on
before I saw Grygorz' explanation and I have been out of pocket today. Will
not be able to get to this until toMorrow.
> On May 28, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Since the bad jars are percolating throug
Just curious, how did this pass the staging test during the vote?
Thanks
-D
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I burned the time I had last night trying to figure out what was going on
> before I saw Grygorz' explanation and I have been out of pocket today.
> Will not be abl
I have written the following for my own project, and a couple of
variants elsewhere (randomNumeric( min, max ) etc.
Also I'm considering maybe a randomGraph() (for printable characters
that match the posix graph regex), and random utf8.
I find these useful for test input data.
if I wrote it int
Most reviewers evaluate the release candidate based on the sources. Other than
the bugged plugin reference in the pom, there is nothing wrong with the
sources. What was defective was the compiled jar. It was correctly hashed and
signed, but due to nasty plugin bug it ended up containing instr
15 matches
Mail list logo
