Re: [lang] release 3.5

2016-01-16 Thread Pascal Schumacher
Hello everybody, maybe somebody could take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1184 and the pull request with the fix https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/113 We are unable to upgrade to 3.4 because of this issue. Thanks, Pascal Am 16.01.2016 um 06:41 schrieb Loic Gu

[VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Phil Steitz
The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote. [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action [

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Gilles
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:18:55 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go about doing it. Votes, please. All are

[Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-16 Thread Gilles
Hi. Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put forward in these posts: http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2 http://markmail.org/message/ifwuijbgjytne6w2 As a consequence, the lack of any development policy, rather than being the touted advantage of the "free world"

AW: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
+0 (I would prefer to not see the traffic on the list) Von: Phil Steitz Gesendet: Samstag, 16. Januar 2016 16:19 An: Commons Developers List Betreff: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math] The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like therefore to put the proposal to s

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread norm
Phil Steitz writes: >The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like >therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate >TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go >about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote. > >[ ] +1 I am

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Otmar Ertl
+0 I am OK with this Otmar On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 5:46 PM, wrote: > Phil Steitz writes: >>The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like >>therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate >>TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread James Carman
+1 On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:19 AM Phil Steitz wrote: > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please.

Re: [lang] Simplify, less clutter.

2016-01-16 Thread Matt Benson
It appears the whole file changed; why is that? I can't tell what was actually done. Matt On Jan 15, 2016 6:33 PM, wrote: > Repository: commons-lang > Updated Branches: > refs/heads/master 7429e75b7 -> 18f5f54ca > > > Simplify, less clutter. > > Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Thomas Vandahl
On 16.01.16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote: > [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action > [X] +0 I am OK with this > [ ] -0 OK, but... > [ ] -1 I oppose this action because... Bye, Thomas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.a

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Hasan Diwan
+0 I am OK with this. What benefits does being a TLP get over a commons-subproject? -- H On 16 January 2016 at 09:49, Thomas Vandahl wrote: > On 16.01.16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote: > > [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action > > [X] +0 I am OK with this > > [ ] -0 OK, but... > > [ ] -1 I oppose this

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit : > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco

Re: [lang] Simplify, less clutter.

2016-01-16 Thread Gary Gregory
Arg, what a mess. I'll fix when I get home. Gary On Jan 16, 2016 9:36 AM, "Matt Benson" wrote: > It appears the whole file changed; why is that? I can't tell what was > actually done. > > Matt > On Jan 15, 2016 6:33 PM, wrote: > > > Repository: commons-lang > > Updated Branches: > > refs/head

Re: [lang] Simplify, less clutter.

2016-01-16 Thread Gary Gregory
Should be clean now. Sorry about that. Gary On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Arg, what a mess. I'll fix when I get home. > > Gary > On Jan 16, 2016 9:36 AM, "Matt Benson" wrote: > >> It appears the whole file changed; why is that? I can't tell what was >> actually done.

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Gary Gregory
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, wrote: > Phil Steitz writes: > >The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > >therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > >TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > >about doing it. Vot

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-16 Thread Phil Steitz
On 1/16/16 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, wrote: > >> Phil Steitz writes: >>> The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like >>> therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate >>> TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, w