Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Gilles wrote: > > According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the > next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which > were not in v3.6.1). > ​Huh, it's above of 75% completion :)​ > So, on the one hand, a lot of work has been done a

Re: TSU NOTIFICATION - Encryption

Thanks, Gary! Then we can proceed with preparing the Commons Crypto Release Candidate. On 6 Jun 2016 12:38 a.m., "Gary Gregory" wrote: > SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU > SUBMITTED BY: Gary Gregory > SUBMITTED FOR:Apache Software Foundation > POINT OF CONTACT: Secretary, Apache Sof

Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution

I am not a mathematician so I would not be able to play a particularly catholic role in commons-math. But, I am always delighted when my research needs allow me to spin off contributions into the code base. I work with complex valued 3 to 6-dimensional image volumes. So I am happy to maintain code

[CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Hello, Apache Commons CRYPTO was established at May 9, 2016[1], There are presently numbers of resolved issues fix in CRYPTO[2]. Recently, we also fixed the legal issue[3]. With the first release, we can begin to promote CRYPTO to other Apache components, like Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, so t

Re: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Hello Dapeng Sun, Dapeng schrieb am Mo., 6. Juni 2016 um 11:13 Uhr: > Hello, > > Apache Commons CRYPTO was established at May 9, 2016[1], There are > presently numbers of resolved issues fix in CRYPTO[2]. Recently, we also > fixed the legal issue[3]. > > With the first release, we can begin to p

[IO] question: list files ordered natively from the fs?

Hi, I've just needed a simple feature, but it should not be that simple if there is not helper available in Commons IO... I'd like to get the list of files of a directory ordered from the filesystem (data, name, etc). I think FileUtils does not provide such feature, and all solutions I found are

Re: Binary compatibility report

Hello, Thanks for reporting this bug. It's fixed for now. The yellow background is used if there is at least one compatibility warning found or compatibility rate is between 90 and 100 percents. Orange color is used when compatibility rate is between 80 and 90 percents. Red color is used when

Re: [IO] question: list files ordered natively from the fs?

Does the java.nio.newDirectoryStream give you the expected file system order? You can compare with python os.listdir: stain@biggiebuntu:~/rc/incubator-taverna-common-activities$ python -c "import os; print(os.listdir('.'))" ['taverna-spreadsheet-import-activity', 'release.properties', 'taverna-ex

Re: [IO] question: list files ordered natively from the fs?

Note that different OSes may present the files in different ways. This will depend on how the OS stores the entries in the directories. For example OpenVMS always sorts directory entries (*). But AFAIK Unix systems don't. Unless the Javadoc specifies the sort order, I think you will need to do the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

Hello Gary, I'll have a look later today. Benedikt Gary Gregory schrieb am Fr., 3. Juni 2016 um 02:24 Uhr: > Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1 is available for review here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/beanutils/ > (revision 13874) > > commons-beanutils-1.9.3-bin.tar.gz

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

Thanks for putting this RC together, Gary, a BeanUtils release is most welcome. Unfortunately, my vote: -1 (binding) .. because the build fails in Windows. Checked: +1 signatures +1 sha1 hashes +1 LICENSE, NOTICE +1 RELEASE-NOTES.txt -1 no README +1 mvn apache-rat check -1 What is the file buil

Re: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Why don't you give us a couple of days before rolling an RC, I for one, would like to review the project a little more carefully. This would avoid wasting time on failed RCs and give an opportunity for others committers and PMC members to make any changes they think should be be done. Could be thin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

On 6 June 2016 at 15:51, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > .. because the build fails in Windows. Or with Maven 3.3 and JDK 1.8. > I see BeanUtils is not listed on > https://builds.apache.org/view/Apache%20Commons/ so I'll add it there. Added as https://builds.apache.org/view/Apache%20Commons/job

Re: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Makes sense for the first release.. like a pre-release candidate candidate, tested from git. So we can assume the current master (commit a289ecd26257ac4ffaf1bbb686cf06b3a9ececdc) is buildable, right? https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/blob/master/BUILDING.txt describes build requirements -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

Hello Gary, unfortunately I have to vote -1 for two reasons: 1. tag name does not follow tag naming convention, although I brought this up when the tag was created initially. Looking at the other tags, it should be BEANUTILS_1_9_3_RC1 2. Build fails with: IndexedPropertyTestCase.testArrayList

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

STATUS.html and PROPOSAL.html are missing from the source archive. Otherwise hashes and sigs and content agree with SVN. I get the following test failures with Java8 on MacOSX Failed tests: IndexedPropertyTestCase.testArrayListIndexedPropertyDescriptor:175 Not IndexedPropertyDescriptor expecte

Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution

Hello Gilles, I think ApacheCon Europe would be a good opportunity to spread the word about this. Benedikt Gilles schrieb am Mo., 6. Juni 2016 um 02:49 Uhr: > Hello. > > Commons Math as it was in the last official release (v3.6.1) and > consequently as it is in the current development branch h

Fwd: [ALL] About binary compatibility

-- Forwarded message -- From: Ralph Goers Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility To: Commons Developers List I think we should adopt Java 9’s multi-release jars [1] as standard practice. While this won’t let us update our APIs without br

BCEL 6 API breakage

Hi all, this is a follow up on https://mailman.cs.umd.edu/pipermail/findbugs-discuss/2016-June/004282.html. I'm cross-posting this to dev@commons.apache.org because the discussion on FindBugs mailing list is related to the BCEL 6 API future, and because I would like to know the opinions from t

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Ralph Goers > Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility > To: Commons Developers List > > > I think we should adopt Java 9’s multi-release jars

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Ralph Goers > Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility > To: Commons Developers List > > > I think we should adopt Java 9’s multi-release jars [1] a

Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution

Although I am not involved in Math I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t just step back and take a breath before rushing into anything. It may be that the approach being recommended is the correct one, but it also may be that there are other people waiting in the wings that we are unaware of.

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > > wrote: > >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Ralph Goers >> Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [ALL] About binary compat

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:12 PM Ralph Goers wrote: > I think we should adopt Java 9’s multi-release jars [1] as standard > practice. While this won’t let us update our APIs without breaking > compatibility (which may still be necessary), it will allow us to leverage > some features in newer versi

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

I should follow this up. I don’t think the multi-release support would help in cases like what I have proposed for VFS (taking advantage of java.nio.file). In that case the changes would almost surely be too extensive to avoid compatibility issues. Ralph > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Ralp

Re: BCEL 6 API breakage

Hello Andrey, the current plan is: - trunk had breaking changes which were mostly reverted. We did this to push out one last release of the 5.2 line with all the fixes that had gone into BCEL. - We're going to do one last 5.x release soon. For this we're going to branch trunk and do a rename of t

[VOTE][LAZY] Migrate Apache Commons CSV to git

Hello, as done before for other components, I'd like to call a VOTE by LAZY consensus for migrating the Apache Commons CSV component to git. Please object to this vote if you see a problem with this. Otherwise this vote will be considered as passed after 72 hours from now (9th June 2016, 21:30 CES

Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Migrate Apache Commons CSV to git

+1 (the sooner, the better) On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hello, > > as done before for other components, I'd like to call a VOTE by LAZY > consensus for migrating the Apache Commons CSV component to git. Please > object to this vote if you see a problem with this. Othe

Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Migrate Apache Commons CSV to git

+1 On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:17 PM Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hello, > > as done before for other components, I'd like to call a VOTE by LAZY > consensus for migrating the Apache Commons CSV component to git. Please > object to this vote if you see a problem with this. Otherwise this vote > will be

[BCEL] 5.3 is going to be messy

Hi all, I had a brief look at the state of BCEL wrt doing a last 5.x release. Well, it feels like that is going to be a mess: - We have @since 6.0 annotations all over the code. - We have same deprecated classes - why if the code is currently in the shape for the 6.0 release, there should be no d

Re: [BCEL] 5.3 is going to be messy

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hi all, > > I had a brief look at the state of BCEL wrt doing a last 5.x release. Well, > it feels like that is going to be a mess: > > - We have @since 6.0 annotations all over the code. > - We have same deprecated classes - why if the co

Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Migrate Apache Commons CSV to git

+1 Gary On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hello, > > as done before for other components, I'd like to call a VOTE by LAZY > consensus for migrating the Apache Commons CSV component to git. Please > object to this vote if you see a problem with this. Otherwise this vote >

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

From what I have been reading on the core-libs-dev mailing list that feature is part of the Java 9 EA releases that are currently being delivered. From this thread it appears you can build currently build multi-release jars with Maven [1[. Ralph [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/core-libs-dev%

Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jochen Wiedmann < > jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > >> -- Forwarded message -- > >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > Thanks for putting this RC together, Gary, a BeanUtils release is most > welcome. > > Unfortunately, my vote: -1 (binding) > > .. because the build fails in Windows. > > Checked: > > +1 signatures > +1 sha1 hashes > +1 LICENSE, NOTICE >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hello Gary, > > unfortunately I have to vote -1 for two reasons: > > 1. tag name does not follow tag naming convention, although I brought this > up when the tag was created initially. Looking at the other tags, it should > be BEANUTILS_1_9

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

Sebb: Thank you for you review. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:10 AM, sebb wrote: > STATUS.html and PROPOSAL.html are missing from the source archive. > Crud, same as 1.9.2. Will fix in trunk. > > Otherwise hashes and sigs and content agree with SVN. > > I get the following test failures with Java8

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #2

See Changes: [ggregory] Regenerate JIRA and MAIL pages but nothing looks effectively different. [ggregory] Add README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md. -- [...truncated 147 lines...] A src/main/resou

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #3

See -- [...truncated 148 lines...] A src/main/resources/org/apache/commons/codec/language/bm/ash_rules_romanian.txt A src/main/resources/org/apache/commons/codec/language/bm/gen_approx_turkis

Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:39:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: Although I am not involved in Math I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t just step back and take a breath before rushing into anything. There isn't any rush, modularization (as many other things, like e.g. to stop sticking to Java 5) has b

Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 17:57:53 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hello Gilles, I think ApacheCon Europe would be a good opportunity to spread the word about this. I hope that by this time, if you want to say a few words about Commons Math, you'll have more positive things to mention... And by thi

Fwd: Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #3

> /home/jenkins/.m2/settings.xm Ugh, how does that get fixed? Gary -- Forwarded message -- From: Apache Jenkins Server Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:18 PM Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #3 To: dev@commons.apache.org, ggreg...@apache.org See

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #3

If that file is bad I would suspect every build running on that server would be failing. The server is jenkins-test-c83. As you know we were told not to use any of the jerkins-test servers for our log4j builds. I went ahead and changed to server restrictions to match what we use for log4j. R

Jenkins build is back to normal : Commons-Codec #4

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #3

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > If that file is bad I would suspect every build running on that server > would be failing. The server is jenkins-test-c83. As you know we were > told not to use any of the jerkins-test servers for our log4j builds. I > went ahead and changed

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-Codec #3

>From what I could tell about the jenkins test instances, they don't seem to be properly set up with repository.apache.org, so it's only the upload stage that fails on them. On 6 June 2016 at 18:58, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > If that file is

Re: [BCEL] 5.3 is going to be messy

Gary Gregory wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Benedikt Ritter > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I had a brief look at the state of BCEL wrt doing a last 5.x release. >> Well, it feels like that is going to be a mess: >> >> - We have @since 6.0 annotations all over the code. >> - We have same

Re: [BCEL] 5.3 is going to be messy

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Benedikt Ritter > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I had a brief look at the state of BCEL wrt doing a last 5.x release. >> Well, >> it feels like that is going to be a mess: >> >> - We have @since 6.0 annotations al

RE: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Thank Benedikt. Regards Dapeng -Original Message- From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:50 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan Hello Dapeng Sun, Dapeng schrieb am Mo., 6. Juni 2016 um 11:13 Uhr: > Hello, > >

RE: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

Thank Gary for reviewing the project. > Mayve announce something like, "I plan on rolling an RC and Friday" or > something like that It's a good suggestion. I think the date can be June 13th (the Next Monday). I will send another email with the date. Regards Dapeng -Original Message- F

[crypto] Logging dependency

Hi All: IMO. if [crypto] is to have a dependency on a logging framework, it should be Log4j 2, not Commons Logging. Log4j 2 has an API module, which you can pair with any number of implementations: Log4j's own Core, JUL, SLF4J, and so on. Gary -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache

RE: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

> So we can assume the current master (commit > a289ecd26257ac4ffaf1bbb686cf06b3a9ececdc) is buildable, right? Yes, a289ecd26257ac4ffaf1bbb686cf06b3a9ececdc is buildable. > https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/blob/master/BUILDING.txt > describes build requirements - in particular you need to

[IMAGING] Update from Java 5 to 7.

Since it's not even released and we are in 2016, I plan on updating to Java 7. Note that the project does not compile now on Java 5 due to the use of some Java 7 API. Gary -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

[crypto] On Java 6, really?

Are we really starting a new component on a dead platform like Java 6? Gary -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition JUnit in Action, Second Edition Spring Batch in

[net] Javadoc format

Why do some [net] Javadoc comments come in the form: /*** ... ***/ Instead of the regular: /** ... */ ? Thank you, Gary -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition JUnit in Action, Second Editio

[crypto] Instructions MUST mention running the tests

Hi All: When I see instructions in BUILDING.txt like: Create binary distribution: $ mvn package -DskipTests I am worried! Why would you NOT want to run unit tests? Skipping tests from Maven is a hack when you know what you are doing. Like when I just ran the tests, all passed, and I changed

Re: [crypto] Instructions MUST mention running the tests

Hello, I also make a habit out of using "mvn verify" instead of "mvn package" (for the same reason, do never document circumventing potential tests). Gruss Bernd -- http://bernd.eckenfels.net -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory To: Commons Developers List Sent: Di., 07 Juni 2016 4

Re: BCEL 6 API breakage

How Apache Commons BCEL got to where it is currently. 1. I wanted to release a version of BCEL which would support Java 6 and 7. 2. I updated several classes that handled the new instructions and new code attributes. 3. This required new methods on several interfaces. 4. These new methods broke b

RE: [crypto] Instructions MUST mention running the tests

Thank Gary for pointing it out, The reason sounds good to me, and running tests didn't cost too much time, I think we can remove " -DskipTests " Regards Dapeng -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:37 AM To: Commons Develop

Re: BCEL 6 API breakage

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Charles Honton wrote: > How Apache Commons BCEL got to where it is currently. > > 1. I wanted to release a version of BCEL which would support Java 6 and 7. > 2. I updated several classes that handled the new instructions and new > code attributes. > 3. This requir

RE: [crypto] Instructions MUST mention running the tests

Thank Bernd, it seems "mvn verify" can't cover creating binary distribution, I think we can add it to Jenkins. Regards Dapeng -Original Message- From: e...@zusammenkunft.net [mailto:e...@zusammenkunft.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 10:40 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [c

Re: [IMAGING] Update from Java 5 to 7.

I'm fine with that. I'm currently thinking about investing some more time into Imaging after we have resolved the problems with BCEL. Gary Gregory schrieb am Di., 7. Juni 2016 um 04:09 Uhr: > Since it's not even released and we are in 2016, I plan on updating to Java > 7. > > Note that the proje

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

Hello Gary, Gary Gregory schrieb am Mo., 6. Juni 2016 um 23:34 Uhr: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Benedikt Ritter > wrote: > > > Hello Gary, > > > > unfortunately I have to vote -1 for two reasons: > > > > 1. tag name does not follow tag naming convention, although I brought > this > > up w

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons BeanUtils 1.9.3 RC1

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hello Gary, > > Gary Gregory schrieb am Mo., 6. Juni 2016 um > 23:34 Uhr: > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Benedikt Ritter > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Gary, > > > > > > unfortunately I have to vote -1 for two reasons: > > > > > > 1.

[VOTE][LAZY] Migrate Apache Commons IO to git

Hello, I'd like to call a VOTE by LAZY consensus for migrating the Apache Commons IO component to git. Please object to this vote if you see a problem with this. Otherwise this vote will be considered as passed after 72 hours from now (10th June 2016, 09:00 CET) Thank you, Kristian