Re: [math] Generate random data using the Inverse CDF Method?

Phil, I understand your opinion, but I don't agree with you (but I accept that you have a different meaning about things just as I expect you to accept mine). I'm sure this is quite common in projects like this, and are interesting in hearing how matters like this are settled? Are there any committ

Re: [exec] Unable to finish release - no write perm in /www/www.apache.org/dist/commons/exec/binaries/

Hi folks, could you fix the permissions on " /www/www.apache.org/dist/commons/exec/" - I'm unable finish my release ... :-) Thanks in advance Siegfried Goeschl sebb wrote: > On 24/10/2009, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> according to http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CreatingRel

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

Hi Niall, you are completely right - the correct result is +1* Luc Maisonobe +1* Niall Pemberton +1* Oliver Heger +1* Rahul Akolkar +1 Paul Benedict +1* Siegfried Goeschl +1* Phil Steitz Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl Niall Pemberton wrote: > The vote did pass but you added up the votes incorrectl

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

The vote did pass but you added up the votes incorrectly - I see no vote from Jörg and you missed my vote: http://markmail.org/message/77srbnesxigmkrsr Niall On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > the RC has successfully passed the vote with the following tally

RE: [codec] regression in 1.4 (CODEC-89)

I'll take a look this week. My family has the flu ATM, so [codec] is on the back burner... G > -Original Message- > From: Julius Davies [mailto:juliusdav...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 11:06 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: [codec] regression in 1.4 (CODEC-89) >

[codec] regression in 1.4 (CODEC-89)

CODEC-89 identifies a regression in the commons-codec-1.4 release. A patch to fix this is attached to CODEC-89. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89 Any committers interested in considering this patch? -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://julius

Re: [dbcp] Callable statement pooling (DBCP-204)

Phil Steitz wrote: > Mark Thomas wrote: >> Phil Steitz wrote: >>> I agree that DBCP should support callable statement pooling and the >>> patch attached to DBCP-204 is a reasonable way to do it. What I am >>> concerned about is that adding callable statements to the prepared >>> statement pool wit

Re: [dbcp] Callable statement pooling (DBCP-204)

Mark Thomas wrote: > Phil Steitz wrote: >> I agree that DBCP should support callable statement pooling and the >> patch attached to DBCP-204 is a reasonable way to do it. What I am >> concerned about is that adding callable statements to the prepared >> statement pool with the current implementati

[RESULT][VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

Hi folks, the RC has successfully passed the vote with the following tally (marking binding votes with *): +1* Luc Maisonobe +1* Jörg Schaible +1* Oliver Heger +1* Rahul Akolkar +1 Paul Benedict +1* Siegfried Goeschl +1* Phil Steitz Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl -

Re: [dbcp] Callable statement pooling (DBCP-204)

Phil Steitz wrote: > I agree that DBCP should support callable statement pooling and the > patch attached to DBCP-204 is a reasonable way to do it. What I am > concerned about is that adding callable statements to the prepared > statement pool with the current implementation may break some > appli