Re: svn commit: r602666 - in /commons/proper/commons-skin/trunk/src/main/resources: LICENSE.txt NOTICE.txt

2007-12-13 Thread Henri Yandell
Seems like a bad idea to me, but I might not be understanding it correctly. 1) Does this mean the LICENSE and NOTICE file are not sitting in svn next to the source? 2) Does this mean each component is sharing a NOTICE file? Hen On Dec 9, 2007 4:50 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [all] Commons SCXML 0.7 RC2 available

2007-12-13 Thread Luc Maisonobe
The checkstyle reports says the Builtin class is a utility class and should not have a public or default constructor. The Javadoc shows the default constructor added by the compiler. Could a private constructor be added to prevent this ? Anyway, this and the other reports from checkstyle seems

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Michiel Kalkman
On 12/13/07, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 13.12.2007, at 14:38, Michiel Kalkman wrote: > > > +1/-1 > > > > I am all for using jdk 1.5, but I guess it will take some time before > > I can use this jdk at work. Is it possible and easy to generate an 1.4 > > compatible binary versio

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Torsten Curdt
On 13.12.2007, at 14:38, Michiel Kalkman wrote: +1/-1 I am all for using jdk 1.5, but I guess it will take some time before I can use this jdk at work. Is it possible and easy to generate an 1.4 compatible binary version from 1.5 sources ? If so, I'd say go for it. This comes up all the time

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Michiel Kalkman
+1/-1 I am all for using jdk 1.5, but I guess it will take some time before I can use this jdk at work. Is it possible and easy to generate an 1.4 compatible binary version from 1.5 sources ? If so, I'd say go for it. Just some additional thoughts (maybe they should be in another thread): - when

Re: svn commit: r603888 - /commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml

2007-12-13 Thread Torsten Curdt
On 13.12.2007, at 13:00, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Dec 13, 2007 11:39 AM, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We also need to pass on the gpg passphrase mvn release:perform -Prc -Dgpg.passphrase=PASSPHRASE -Darguments="- Prc -Dgpg.passphrase=PASSPHRASE" Are you sure? When did the com

Re: svn commit: r603888 - /commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml

2007-12-13 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Dec 13, 2007 11:39 AM, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We also need to pass on the gpg passphrase > > mvn release:perform -Prc -Dgpg.passphrase=PASSPHRASE -Darguments="- > Prc -Dgpg.passphrase=PASSPHRASE" Are you sure? When did the commons-skin-2 I using the "rc" profile I was prom

Re: svn commit: r603888 - /commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml

2007-12-13 Thread Torsten Curdt
We also need to pass on the gpg passphrase mvn release:perform -Prc -Dgpg.passphrase=PASSPHRASE -Darguments="- Prc -Dgpg.passphrase=PASSPHRASE" IMO this is a maven bug/misconception that one cannot just pass on those parameters automatically. This whole 'arguments' business looks like a n

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread James Carman
+1. We need to come up with a standardized way of dealing with this though I think. At first I didn't like changing package names, but it does help avoid the "jar hell" issue. On 12/13/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > >> - go for 1.5 > >> - take advantage of generics > > +

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Dec 13, 2007 8:42 AM, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Heger wrote: > > (There was a similar discussion about commons lang recently.) > > > > Configuration used to support JDK 1.3. For the next release (either > > 1.6 or 2.0) I would like to drop this compatibility. The number >

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Mario Ivankovits
Hi! >> - go for 1.5 >> - take advantage of generics > +1!!! Frankly speaking this is probably applies to most of commons. > > If commons wants to stay relevant and not become just legacy we also > need to take some steps forward. +1 ... long overdue maybe too long!? Ciao, Mario

RE: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Simon Kitching
"Jörg Schaible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Oliver Heger wrote: > > (There was a similar discussion about commons lang recently.) > > > > Configuration used to support JDK 1.3. For the next release (either > > 1.6 or 2.0) I would like to drop this compatibility. The number > > of feature >

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme (in module commons-jelly) failed

2007-12-13 Thread commons-jelly-tags-jaxme development
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme has an issue affecting its community integration. This

Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Torsten Curdt
On 13.12.2007, at 09:42, Jörg Schaible wrote: Oliver Heger wrote: (There was a similar discussion about commons lang recently.) Configuration used to support JDK 1.3. For the next release (either 1.6 or 2.0) I would like to drop this compatibility. The number of feature requests that require

RE: [configuration] JDK compatibility

2007-12-13 Thread Jörg Schaible
Oliver Heger wrote: > (There was a similar discussion about commons lang recently.) > > Configuration used to support JDK 1.3. For the next release (either > 1.6 or 2.0) I would like to drop this compatibility. The number > of feature > requests that require a newer JDK version is increasing. > >