Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 based on RC4

2017-02-07 Thread sebb
Sorry for coming late to the party. I've only just noticed two issues with the code: TEXT-63 - protected mutable fields TEXT-40 - escape HTML characters only once Fixing these will break API compatibility. However, this is beta code and has its own sub-package (neat idea BTW). So if it's conside

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 based on RC4

2017-02-07 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 6:23 AM, sebb wrote: > > Sorry for coming late to the party. > I've only just noticed two issues with the code: > > TEXT-63 - protected mutable fields > TEXT-40 - escape HTML characters only once > > Fixing these will break API compatibility. > > However, this is beta cod

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 based on RC4

2017-02-07 Thread Benedikt Ritter
Hi, > Am 07.02.2017 um 13:04 schrieb Rob Tompkins : > >> >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 6:23 AM, sebb wrote: >> >> Sorry for coming late to the party. >> I've only just noticed two issues with the code: >> >> TEXT-63 - protected mutable fields >> TEXT-40 - escape HTML characters only once >> >> Fixin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.1.1 based on RC1

2017-02-07 Thread Benedikt Ritter
> Am 05.02.2017 um 15:23 schrieb Benedikt Ritter : > > Hi, > > we’ve fixed some bugs since the release of Commons Configuration 2.1 so I’d > like to call a vote to release Commons Configuration 2.1.1 based on RC1. > > Commons Configuration 2.1.1 RC1 is available for review here: > https://dis

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 based on RC4

2017-02-07 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > > Hi, > >> Am 07.02.2017 um 13:04 schrieb Rob Tompkins : >> >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 6:23 AM, sebb wrote: >>> >>> Sorry for coming late to the party. >>> I've only just noticed two issues with the code: >>> >>> TEXT-63 - protected mu

Re: svn commit: r18200 - /dev/commons/text/

2017-02-07 Thread sebb
On 7 February 2017 at 12:12, wrote: > Author: chtompki > Date: Tue Feb 7 12:12:46 2017 > New Revision: 18200 > > Log: > fix: typographical error - staging commons-text artifacts' sha1 and md5 files > from 1.0-beta-1-RC4 > > Modified: > dev/commons/text/commons-text-1.0-beta-1-bin.tar.gz.md5

Re: svn commit: r18200 - /dev/commons/text/

2017-02-07 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 7 February 2017 at 12:12, wrote: >> Author: chtompki >> Date: Tue Feb 7 12:12:46 2017 >> New Revision: 18200 >> >> Log: >> fix: typographical error - staging commons-text artifacts' sha1 and md5 >> files from 1.0-beta-1-RC4 >> >> Modified: >

Re: svn commit: r18200 - /dev/commons/text/

2017-02-07 Thread sebb
On 7 February 2017 at 14:52, Rob Tompkins wrote: > >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, sebb wrote: >> >> On 7 February 2017 at 12:12, wrote: >>> Author: chtompki >>> Date: Tue Feb 7 12:12:46 2017 >>> New Revision: 18200 >>> >>> Log: >>> fix: typographical error - staging commons-text artifacts' sha

Re: svn commit: r18200 - /dev/commons/text/

2017-02-07 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 7 February 2017 at 14:52, Rob Tompkins wrote: >> >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, sebb wrote: >>> >>> On 7 February 2017 at 12:12, wrote: Author: chtompki Date: Tue Feb 7 12:12:46 2017 New Revision: 18200 Log:

[TEXT] beta release notes

2017-02-07 Thread sebb
It occurs to me that the beta release will not be source or binary compatible with the first GA release (assuming that this drops the .beta package name segment). I don't think this is a problem, but we do need to make it very clear in the release notes and the announce and on the download page th

Re: [TEXT] beta release notes

2017-02-07 Thread Gary Gregory
Agreed! Gary On Feb 7, 2017 8:36 AM, "sebb" wrote: > It occurs to me that the beta release will not be source or binary > compatible with the first GA release (assuming that this drops the > .beta package name segment). > > I don't think this is a problem, but we do need to make it very clear >

Re: [TEXT] beta release notes

2017-02-07 Thread Rob Tompkins
Agreed. -Rob > On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Agreed! > > Gary > >> On Feb 7, 2017 8:36 AM, "sebb" wrote: >> >> It occurs to me that the beta release will not be source or binary >> compatible with the first GA release (assuming that this drops the >> .beta package na

Re: [CONFIGURATION]: JavaDoc for generated classes (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.1.1 based on RC1)

2017-02-07 Thread Oliver Heger
Am 07.02.2017 um 08:35 schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > >> Am 07.02.2017 um 08:29 schrieb Gary Gregory : >> >> Should we generate code in its own package? > > Let’s move this to it’s own thread… > > Generating the classes in their own packe would be an option. The package > could have a name that m

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons JCS 2.1 based on RC1

2017-02-07 Thread Oliver Heger
Build works fine with Java 1.6 and 1.8 on Windows 10. The site build failed for me with Java 1.8 because of Javadoc errors, but this is not blocking. Site and artifacts look good. I noticed that OSGi manifests of jars use the same symbolic bundle name, e.g. for commons-jcs-core-2.1.jar and commons

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 based on RC4

2017-02-07 Thread Benedikt Ritter
> Am 07.02.2017 um 14:21 schrieb Rob Tompkins : > >> >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> Am 07.02.2017 um 13:04 schrieb Rob Tompkins : >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 6:23 AM, sebb wrote: Sorry for coming late to the party. I've only just