> -Original Message-
> From: Julius Davies [mailto:juliusdav...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:50 AM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [codec] - CODEC-59 and CODEC-81
>
> Very sorry! New patch uploaded.
>
> yours,
>
> Julius
Julius:
Patch for [CODEC-81] is in a
Well, this may be an RTFM...
I added:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/Codec/Version_1_4
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/Codec/Version_1_5
for planning purposes and linked from:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/Codec
I used the subpage notation, but that did not seem to work.
Any Wiki ideas?
Gary
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for
change notification.
The following page has been changed by GaryGregory:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/Codec/Version_1_5
New page:
= Commons Codec Version 1.5 =
* Migrated to Java 1.5.0.
--
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for
change notification.
The following page has been changed by GaryGregory:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/Codec/Version_1_4
New page:
= Commons Codec Version 1.4 =
* Migrated to Java 1.4.2.
* Build system
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for
change notification.
The following page has been changed by GaryGregory:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/Codec
--
* /CodecNa
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Jörg Schaible
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:50 PM
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
>
> sebb wrote at Montag, 27. Juli 2009 23:14:
>
> > On 27/07/2009, Niall Pembe
sebb wrote at Montag, 27. Juli 2009 23:14:
> On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
[sinp]
>> I dont know the plugin, but looking at the code it looks like it
>> generates the jar and extracts the manifest:
>>
>>
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/releases/maven-bundle-plugin-2.0.0/src/main
> -Original Message-
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 2:01 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM, sebb wrote:
> > On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrot
On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM, sebb wrote:
> > On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, sebb wrote:
> >> > On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
> >> >> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
> >> >> > I had a quick look at this
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
>> >> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
>> >> > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
>> >> > headers
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
>> >> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
>> >> > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
>> >> > headers
On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, sebb wrote:
> > On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
> >> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
> >> > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
> >> > headers as generated by the Maven build, but autogenerating
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
>> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
>> > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
>> > headers as generated by the Maven build, but autogenerating the
>> > headers (so they would still be OK if the
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
>> On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
>> > On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
>> > > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
>> > > headers as generated by the Maven build, but autogenerating the
>> > >
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:11 AM
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:0
Very sorry! New patch uploaded.
yours,
Julius
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Gary
Gregory wrote:
> Hi Julius,
>
> The new test patch in CODEC-59 contains a call to a Java 1.5 API so I cannot
> apply it. We are on Java 1.4.2 for codec 1.4. Can you please provide a
> reworked patch?
>
> Than
I like to use $Id $ for this kind of information.
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Luc Maisonobe [mailto:luc.maison...@free.fr]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:12 AM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [ALL] Use of SVN variable $Date$ - do we need it?
>
> sebb a écrit :
> > The
sebb a écrit :
> On 27/07/2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> The files I have looked at have $Id: in them. This contains the latest
>> revision number, the date and the committer id. From time to time I find
>> this to be informative. I would prefer this over $Date or $HeadURL.
>
> $Id is fine, because
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
> > On 27/07/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >> The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> > >> this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> > >> source arc
On 27/07/2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The files I have looked at have $Id: in them. This contains the latest
> revision number, the date and the committer id. From time to time I find
> this to be informative. I would prefer this over $Date or $HeadURL.
$Id is fine, because it uses UTC rather than
sebb a écrit :
> On 27/07/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >
> >> The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> >> this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> >> source archives a bit tedious.
> >>
> >> Do we really need this variable?
> >>
The files I have looked at have $Id: in them. This contains the latest
revision number, the date and the committer id. From time to time I
find this to be informative. I would prefer this over $Date or $HeadURL.
Ralph
On Jul 27, 2009, at 8:22 AM, sebb wrote:
On 27/07/2009, Phil Steitz wro
On 27/07/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> > this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> > source archives a bit tedious.
> >
> > Do we really need this variable?
> >
> >
> I like having this i
On 27/07/2009, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>
>
> > As I wrote originally, it makes comparison between the SVN tag and the
> > source archive tedious.
> >
>
> But what's the point of comparing them if they are supposed to be
> identical? For the release checking process maybe?
Exactly.
sebb wrote:
The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
source archives a bit tedious.
Do we really need this variable?
I like having this info in the file, since it saves a step looking at
the repo to t
Hey,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:00 AM, sebb wrote:
> The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> source archives a bit tedious.
>
> Do we really need this variable?
>
> I would have thought that $Revision w
sebb a écrit :
As I wrote originally, it makes comparison between the SVN tag and the
source archive tedious.
But what's the point of comparing them if they are supposed to be
identical? For the release checking process maybe?
Emmanuel Bourg
On 27/07/2009, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>
>
> > The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> > this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> > source archives a bit tedious.
> >
> > Do we really need this variable?
> >
> > I would have th
On 27/07/2009, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>
> > The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> > this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> > source archives a bit tedious.
> >
> > Do we really need this variable?
>
>
> I think it is im
sebb a écrit :
The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
source archives a bit tedious.
Do we really need this variable?
I would have thought that $Revision was enough to identify the file.
Similarly, $H
sebb a écrit :
> The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
> this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
> source archives a bit tedious.
>
> Do we really need this variable?
I think it is important for users who find some source code to know how
old
On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
> > On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
> > > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
> > > headers as generated by the Maven build, but autogenerating the
> > > headers (so they would still be OK if the source changed
The SVN variable $Date shows the date of last update. Unfortunately
this is expressed in local time, which makes comparing tags with
source archives a bit tedious.
Do we really need this variable?
I would have thought that $Revision was enough to identify the file.
Similarly, $HeadURL may vary:
On 27/07/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
> On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
> > I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
> > headers as generated by the Maven build, but autogenerating the
> > headers (so they would still be OK if the source changed) looks
> > somewhat harder.
> >
>
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:11 AM
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:0
On 27/07/2009, sebb wrote:
> I had a quick look at this. It would be trivial to copy the OSGI
> headers as generated by the Maven build, but autogenerating the
> headers (so they would still be OK if the source changed) looks
> somewhat harder.
>
> For one thing, the "bnd" jar tool seems to need Ja
Hi Julius,
The new test patch in CODEC-59 contains a call to a Java 1.5 API so I cannot
apply it. We are on Java 1.4.2 for codec 1.4. Can you please provide a reworked
patch?
Thank you,
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Julius Davies [mailto:juliusdav...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July
37 matches
Mail list logo
