This is a vote to release the following artifacts as Commons SCXML 0.8:
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.8/RC2/
[ ] +1 for release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 for release because...
Vote will close no sooner than Sunday, May 18th (same time).
TIA for your tim
On 5/15/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sebb a écrit :
> >
> >> However AFAICS "jar hell" could still apply to those unknown projects,
> >> and needs to be avoided if at all possible.
> >
> > Well
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>
>> However AFAICS "jar hell" could still apply to those unknown projects,
>> and needs to be avoided if at all possible.
>
> Well, the probability of jar hell with Commons Math is near zero, I would
> not
sebb a écrit :
However AFAICS "jar hell" could still apply to those unknown projects,
and needs to be avoided if at all possible.
Well, the probability of jar hell with Commons Math is near zero, I
would not annoy all the users with a package change for a very
hypothetical issue. When you lo
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason left to rename packages if you're OSGi compliant?
> Different versions should be in different class loaders.
>
Does everyone use OSGi? I've never used it.
-
Is there any reason left to rename packages if you're OSGi compliant?
Different versions should be in different class loaders.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just my 2c, but I think package renaming for major releases is ugly and
> unecessary.
>
> Phil
Just my 2c, but I think package renaming for major releases is ugly and
unecessary.
Phil Steitz wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ja
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> James Carman a écrit :
Would it be better to make it Math 2.0? With a language level change
lik
+1
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to release version 6 of the commons-sandbox-parent pom to
upgrade to version 10 of commons-parent so that the Continuum changes
Rahul made are picked up by Sandbox components.
There have been no other changes since the last release of
commons-sandbox-par
Hi all,
just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net
1.5 / 2.0?
Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when
can
we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could
help
with?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member o
Phil Steitz a écrit :
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Carman a écrit :
Would it be better to make it Math 2.0? With a language level change
like that, it should probably be a new major version. You should also
consider putting the stuff in org.
James Carman a écrit :
And, if you're going to jump versions, you should jump your
package name to match. Again, that's just my opinion. I would just
like to see Commons do things in a somewhat consistent manner when it
comes to this kind of thing.
I agree to have a consistent policy when de
On 15/05/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There must be many projects that use Commons Math that aren't
> > published in the Maven repository.
> >
> > Indeed if not, why was Commons Math created? There must be s
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There must be many projects that use Commons Math that aren't
> published in the Maven repository.
>
> Indeed if not, why was Commons Math created? There must be some
> projects using it!
I think the point was that we aren't very l
On 15/05/2008, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>
> > Regarding package renaming, there are very few backward incompatible
> > changes lined up for 2.0, and all of the proposed 1.5-dependent stuff
> > is new, so I am hesistant to do a wholesale change. What would
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Regarding package renaming, there are very few backward incompatible
changes lined up for 2.0, and all of the proposed 1.5-dependent stuff
is new, so I am hesistant to do a wholesale change. What would be the
problem with renaming only packages that contain classes with
in
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carman a écrit :
>>
>> Would it be better to make it Math 2.0? With a language level change
>> like that, it should probably be a new major version. You should also
>> consider putting the stuff in org.apache.commo
James Carman a écrit :
Would it be better to make it Math 2.0? With a language level change
like that, it should probably be a new major version. You should also
consider putting the stuff in org.apache.commons.math2 packages to
avoid "jar hell" issues.
And if you do so, you'll have to change
csanders a écrit :
Ahh, and Velocity uses getProperty() .
I'm not sure about this, I looked quickly into the Velocity code, it
seems it mostly uses getString() on the ExtendedProperties, so the
interpolation should work.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
19 matches
Mail list logo
