On 24/02/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I think you lost me
>
> +) assuming that commons-exec-1.0.0 is out there what would be the
> version number for a bugfix only release - would it be 1.1?!
1.0.1 - for a point release
1.1 for a minor release
But the first release woul
Hi folks,
I think you lost me
+) assuming that commons-exec-1.0.0 is out there what would be the
version number for a bugfix only release - would it be 1.1?!
+) assuming that the version numbering schema consists of three parts -
why should I start with 1.0 and not with 1.0.0?!
Within the A
I have created a CalendarInterval class that represents a fully closed
interval of Calendar objects. It has many of the semantics of
CharRange in Commons Lang. CalendarInterval uses Java 5 features and
has JUnit 4.4 based tests. Moreover, this class is technically
property of my employer.
Hence
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=148364&projectId=176
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Error
Started at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:35:01 -0800
Finished at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:35:23 -0800
Total time: 21s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=148363&projectId=159
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Error
Started at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:34:23 -0800
Finished at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:34:44 -0800
Total time: 20s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=148362&projectId=157
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Error
Started at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:33:50 -0800
Finished at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:34:10 -0800
Total time: 20s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=148361&projectId=177
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Error
Started at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:33:20 -0800
Finished at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:33:37 -0800
Total time: 17s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=148360&projectId=158
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Error
Started at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:32:44 -0800
Finished at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:33:10 -0800
Total time: 25s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=148359&projectId=156
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Error
Started at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:30:12 -0800
Finished at: Tue 24 Feb 2009 12:32:30 -0800
Total time: 2m 18s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Num
Hi All...
I am working on this JIRA VALIDATOR-274 -
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VALIDATOR-274 .
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
--
I vote for karma.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> 742870 - ?? - Lacking Unit Tests, not liking the catch Exception.
>> RuntimeException throwing needs String arg. Generally not trusting the
>> Java API here to work beautifully and wanting to have
sebb a écrit :
> On 24/02/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> IMO avoiding point release is a mistake because you loose a strong
>> statement regarding backward compatibility
>
> But there is nothing here to be compatible with ...
>
>> +) commons-exec-1.0.0 is out but contai
Henri Yandell wrote:
742870 - ?? - Lacking Unit Tests, not liking the catch Exception.
RuntimeException throwing needs String arg. Generally not trusting the
Java API here to work beautifully and wanting to have covered a bunch
of use cases.
Thanks for reviewing!
I tweaked exception handling
On 24/02/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> IMO avoiding point release is a mistake because you loose a strong
> statement regarding backward compatibility
But there is nothing here to be compatible with ...
> +) commons-exec-1.0.0 is out but contains a stupid bug
That should
Hi Sebastian,
IMO avoiding point release is a mistake because you loose a strong
statement regarding backward compatibility
+) commons-exec-1.0.0 is out but contains a stupid bug
+) commons-exec-1.0.1 is ONLY a bugfix release adding absolutely no fatures
+) commons-exec-1.1.0 contains the bugfixe
Hi Dennis,
thanks for your help - I thought I messed up something with my release
;-)
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
>> Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> the current feedback requires a cancellation and a discussion
>>>
>
On 24/02/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> the current feedback requires a cancellation and a discussion
>
> 1) wrong download link in email - was a copy and paste error on my side
>
> 2) improved manifest in sources and javadoc jar - seems to be a parent
> pom issue and effects a
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> the current feedback requires a cancellation and a discussion
>>
>> 1) wrong download link in email - was a copy and paste error on my side
>>
>> 2) improved manifest in sources and javadoc jar - seems to be a parent
>> pom issue
Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> the current feedback requires a cancellation and a discussion
>
> 1) wrong download link in email - was a copy and paste error on my side
>
> 2) improved manifest in sources and javadoc jar - seems to be a parent
> pom issue and effects all M2 releases (c
Hi folks,
the current feedback requires a cancellation and a discussion
1) wrong download link in email - was a copy and paste error on my side
2) improved manifest in sources and javadoc jar - seems to be a parent
pom issue and effects all M2 releases (checked commons-cli,
commons-digester, com
On 24/02/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 24/02/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > the next release candidate
> >
> > Tag:
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/exec/tags/EXEC_1_0_0
> >
> > Site:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/exec/1
On 24/02/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> the next release candidate
>
> Tag:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/exec/tags/EXEC_1_0_0
>
> Site:
>
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/exec/1.0.0/RC4/site/index.html
>
> Binaries:
>
>
> http://people.a
Siegfried Goeschl a écrit :
> Hi folks,
>
> the next release candidate
The findbugs-exclude-filter.xml file is not in the source archive, so
building everything from source fails. This can be fixed by adding it in
the src/assembly/src.xml file.
Otherwise, everything is fine to me.
+1 for t
Daniela Kolarova a écrit :
> Hello All,
>
> I am interested in the develoment of the linear algebra subpackage of the
> commons-math project. Can someone give me infomation on the current state of
> the package and the TODO lists, plannings for the near future?
That's great, thanks for your inter
Hi folks,
the next release candidate
Tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/exec/tags/EXEC_1_0_0
Site:
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/exec/1.0.0/RC4/site/index.html
Binaries:
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/exec/1.0.0/RC4/staged/commons-exec/commons-exec/1
On 2009-02-24, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Nothing in commons vfs changed. What broke it?
Hard to say. It could be a change in an underlying library.
It seems more likely - since it fixed itself - that it is some sort of
timing issue, though.
>From the test's name I assume it is changing timestamps
Hi Sebastian,
during a discussion at the end of december (may commons-exec release
candidates ago) it was recommended to drop the "RCn" approach for the
release tag und the Wiki page were updated accordingly. Having said that
both approaches have their merits but I think the advantage of not using
27 matches
Mail list logo
