On Jan 12, 2008 12:29 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason is to have reproducible builds. It makes sure that, no matter
> who is building component A, the end result will always be the same.
>
> Specifying versions for all plugins is considered a best practice. This
> has b
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=37186&projectId=159
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 11 Jan 2008 18:30:44 -0800
Finished at: Fri 11 Jan 2008 18:31:06 -0800
Total time: 22s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=37186&projectId=159
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 11 Jan 2008 18:30:44 -0800
Finished at: Fri 11 Jan 2008 18:31:06 -0800
Total time: 22s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
> From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:56 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
> > The ant build in this RC fails on Sun Java
On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
> >> remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions peopl
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
remote-resources-plugi
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people
objected to. Please Note this is not configuring commons-parent to
*use* that plugi
Simon Kitching wrote:
Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
simon wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
sebb wrote:
AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the
artefacts that are actually included in the distribution.
In the case of
On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK revised changes since commons-parent-6 is here: http://tinyurl.com/2v5lnh
>
> (I left in the javadoc plugin as that takes part in the build too?)
>
Don't know, but thanks for pushing this along (other changed look good to me).
-Rahul
On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
> > > remote-resources-plugin - w
On Jan 11, 2008 3:35 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2008 5:10 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have tagged and rolled another (hopefully last) RC for pool-1.4. If
> > > there are no significant pro
On Jan 11, 2008 2:49 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri Yandell writes:
> > In Lang's case, it's more of a playground than an active release branch.
>
> What about Collections?
Sorry - had meant to reply on that, though I've been less involved there.
The Collections Generics branch seems to
On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 5:10 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have tagged and rolled another (hopefully last) RC for pool-1.4. If
> > there are no significant problems reported with this RC, I will roll a
> > final distribution making
On Jan 11, 2008 1:01 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Author: niallp
> > Date: Fri Jan 11 04:41:55 2008
> > New Revision: 611159
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=611159&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Pool 1.4 is JDK 1.3 compat
On 11/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: niallp
> Date: Fri Jan 11 04:41:55 2008
> New Revision: 611159
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=611159&view=rev
> Log:
> Pool 1.4 is JDK 1.3 compatible, also add clirr report
>
If using M2 to build, perhaps Java 1.3 cou
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
On Jan 7, 2008 5:10 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have tagged and rolled another (hopefully last) RC for pool-1.4. If
> there are no significant problems reported with this RC, I will roll a
> final distribution making only version number changes and kick off a
> VOTE based on the
On Jan 11, 2008 10:50 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Niall,
> >
> >
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > I just made some more changes to commons-parent:
> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=
On Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > I just made some more changes to commons-parent:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126
> >
> > This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the
> > ja
Henri Yandell writes:
> In Lang's case, it's more of a playground than an active release branch.
What about Collections?
> JIRA has a LangTwo version with the various ideas in, many without
> code.
I'll try and see if I can attach some patches to these to get the ball
rolling,
Richard
Hi Niall,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I just made some more changes to commons-parent:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126
>
> This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the
> javadoc jar (which Dennis was -1 to, but three people agreed). See
> http://tinyurl.c
On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
> > remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people
> > objected to. Please Note
On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
> remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people
> objected to. Please Note this is not configuring commons-parent to
> *use* that plugin - but just to sp
I just made some more changes to commons-parent:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126
This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the
javadoc jar (which Dennis was -1 to, but three people agreed). See
http://tinyurl.com/2zueu5 for all changes since commons-parent
This vote has failed with only two votes. Also theres a few other
changes to go into the pom from the discussion(s) .
Niall
On Jan 8, 2008 2:44 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In removing the remote-resources-plugin I ommitted to add back local
> resource configuration fo
On Jan 10, 2008 5:47 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:08 +, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I forgot to note: The distribution is availa
26 matches
Mail list logo
