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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
On 4/23/11 6:17 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> sorry for the silly message... but I don't remember at all how to
> configure Gump at all... :(
> can anyone help me please? thanks in advance!
> Simo
>
I think all committers have access to the metadata, which is here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/gu
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
sorry for the silly message... but I don't remember at all how to
configure Gump at all... :(
can anyone help me please? thanks in advance!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Gump wrote:
> To whom it may engage...
>
> This is a
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-pool2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
On Apr 23, 2011, at 13:10, Matt Benson wrote:
> Hi, Gary--now that this method is public, it would seem to fit better
> into StringUtils as an alternate repeat() signature. I would also
> switch the int/char parameters for consistency with the rest of the
> group, then FormattableUtils can also
On Apr 23, 2011, at 18:43, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/23/11 2:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> I'd like to think this reset should let us get to see a release with
>> generics sooner rather than later. I'm all for releasing early for
>> generics and moving on from three.
> We need to make whatever ot
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:10, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
>>
>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
Hi All:
I find that the new 'valid' method names in Validate make for odd reading.
>>>
On 4/23/11 2:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I'd like to think this reset should let us get to see a release with
> generics sooner rather than later. I'm all for releasing early for
> generics and moving on from three.
We need to make whatever other API changes we are going to make for
the foreseeabl
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=7673&projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 23 Apr 2011 22:26:22 +
Finished at: Sat 23 Apr 2011 22:26:41 +
Total time: 18s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Buil
Hi Gary,
my strong +1 on this, that's way we agreed on resetting the trunk (and
I started working to restore generics :P)
Thanks for your feedback!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I'd like to think t
sorry guys, already got it, going to fix it now
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Continuum@vmbuild
wrote:
> Online report :
> http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=7671&projectId=98
>
> Build statistics:
I'd like to think this reset should let us get to see a release with
generics sooner rather than later. I'm all for releasing early for
generics and moving on from three.
Gary
On Apr 23, 2011, at 12:14, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/23/11 8:07 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> GREAT, thanks Phil!!!
>> I
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=7671&projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sat 23 Apr 2011 21:21:55 +
Finished at: Sat 23 Apr 2011 21:23:17 +
Total time: 1m 22s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
On 4/23/11 10:08 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> I deduce to overlook, for now, also methods marked as @deprecated,
> (typically the setFactory() methods), right?
> Thanks in advance!
> Simo
>
Fine by me.
Phil
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sa
Hi, Gary--now that this method is public, it would seem to fit better
into StringUtils as an alternate repeat() signature. I would also
switch the int/char parameters for consistency with the rest of the
group, then FormattableUtils can also use it for its padding behavior.
:)
Matt
On Fri, Apr
Hi Phil,
I deduce to overlook, for now, also methods marked as @deprecated,
(typically the setFactory() methods), right?
Thanks in advance!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/23/11 8:07 AM, Simone Trip
Hi Phil,
thanks for your prompt feedback!!!
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Can you please either do something to suppress all the checkstyle
> warnings generated because of missing "T" params or add them?
sure, just give me the time to get the doc how to do it.
> Also, it
Can you please either do something to suppress all the checkstyle
warnings generated because of missing "T" params or add them?
Also, its fine if it is easier to do the initial commit of these
changes with the pool package name, but we should change the package
name ASAP.
It would also be great t
On 4/23/11 8:07 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> GREAT, thanks Phil!!!
> I'm going to checkout the current trunk and updating pool code!!!
> Have a nice weekend!!!
> Simo
Great! Remember to update changes.xml in trunk with references to
issues as you bring things over. For now, let's just make the
ge
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:10, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
>
>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> I find that the new 'valid' method names in Validate make for odd reading.
>>>
>>> I think a verb like 'validate*' or 'check*' would be better. E
GREAT, thanks Phil!!!
I'm going to checkout the current trunk and updating pool code!!!
Have a nice weekend!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/22/11 11:20 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 22/03/2011 17:
On 3/22/11 11:20 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 22/03/2011 17:58, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Hi Mark and all:
>>
>> It's good to hear someone is thinking about moving forward!
>>
>> pool2 trunk seems to me to be highly volatile based on having worked some in
>> pool2.
>>
>> I've read opinions here going b
On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:10, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I find that the new 'valid' method names in Validate make for odd reading.
>>
>> I think a verb like 'validate*' or 'check*' would be better. Especially
>> when the Javadocs all start with 'Validates...'.
>>
Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I find that the new 'valid' method names in Validate make for odd reading.
>
> I think a verb like 'validate*' or 'check*' would be better. Especially
> when the Javadocs all start with 'Validates...'.
>
> I do see 'check' used in other internal APIs for this k
25 matches
Mail list logo
