Hello,
I don’t have intentions to add a module-info file to logging. I think we should
just go with the Automatic-Module-Header solution.
I started this thread to find out why the Logging repo contains Java 1.3 files
although the build targets Java 1.2. With the latest commons-parent, I get
bu
On 01/11/17 19:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Pool implements its own LinkedBlockingDeque which is almost like Java
> 7's LinkedBlockingDeque.
>
> The JRE LinkedBlockingDeque is not a drop in replacement for
> our LinkedBlockingDeque.
>
> Any thoughts on migrating from our custom LinkedBl
[ X ] +1 Release this package
Build passing in Ubuntu LTS JDK 8 using git commit, site generated, no blockers
in reports.
Any plans to use the changes.xml file for next releases?
I have an automated script that downloads the KEYS file from
https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS, and it f
I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.
Mark
--
I propose that all releases we do use the three part version format like
major.minor.maintenance, for example 1.1.0 for the next daemon.
Gary
On 11/02/2017 02:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I propose that all releases we do use the three part version format like
> major.minor.maintenance, for example 1.1.0 for the next daemon.
Why not simply 1.1 as we usually do?
Emmanuel Bourg
---
How about calling it 1.1.0?
Gary
On Nov 2, 2017 07:33, "Mark Thomas" wrote:
> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
Hi Gary,
> Am 02.11.2017 um 15:28 schrieb Gary Gregory :
>
> How about calling it 1.1.0?
See Emmanuels answer on the other thread. Why would we do that? :-)
Regards,
Benedikt
>
> Gary
>
> On Nov 2, 2017 07:33, "Mark Thomas" wrote:
>
>> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon ope
On 02/11/17 14:28, Gary Gregory wrote:
> How about calling it 1.1.0?
That would be my preference.
I only went with 1.1 as that was the convention with other components.
That isn't a convention I agree with but neither is it very high up my
list of things I'm particularly bothered about.
I'm happ
This could be an argument that goes the way of source code formatting ;-)
but my simplest reasons are:
- It all lines up nicely all the time
- It hints that we intend to supply bug fix releases
Gary
On Nov 2, 2017 08:32, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> > Am 02.11.2017 um 15:28 schrieb G
GitHub user ajs6f opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/commons-rdf/pull/43
COMMONSRDF-49: Make AbstractRDFParser serializable
Very simple approach-- I just exposed the values of the fields internally
and made the accessors keep producing `Optional`. My understanding is
On 2 November 2017 at 05:24, Mark Thomas wrote:
> The implementations should be almost identical since they derive from
> the same source. The key difference is that the Pool version exposes
> some internals that the JDK version does not. Unless the JDK provided
> implementation has changed (and
On 02/11/17 13:33, Mark Thomas wrote:
> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
> Unless there are objections, I plan to t
Hi,
of course, my vote for Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1: +1 (non-binding)
Thanks for all feedback. I'll try to answer some of the comments received
so far.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Aaron Coburn wrote:
>
> I did have some problems building with JDK9 (OS X), first with the
version of
14 matches
Mail list logo
