Due to legal issue, this vote can be considered canceled.
I'll cut a new RC during the day, thanks for reviewing!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Simone
nice approach, thanks!
I just wonder if we can move txt files on the root instead that
putting in assembly related stuff dir - at the end of the day, names
don't collide...
Ready to cut a new RC, thanks again,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http
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
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-exec-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This i
On 9 December 2011 20:17, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> OK, fine and thanks
It was a bit trickier than I thought, but I think it's working now.
In the end did not need to create a sub-module for the packaging -
just had to find out how to override the default N&L files.
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apac
OK, fine and thanks
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:03 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 19:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>
>>> By inclusion, I meant source o
On 9 December 2011 19:25, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>> By inclusion, I meant source or binary.
>> But in both cases the license must be included in LICENSE file.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>>
>
> thanks, that is useful not just for that rel
>
> By inclusion, I meant source or binary.
> But in both cases the license must be included in LICENSE file.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>
thanks, that is useful not just for that release
>
> It's up to you, but it looks easy enough to chan
On 9 December 2011 18:38, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>> There are two aspects to this.
>>
>> 1) Does the artifact actually included the 3rd party code?
>> If not, then it should not be mentioned at all.
>>
>
> it does not include the 3rd party source code, only the binary
> artifact - and it has to
>
> There are two aspects to this.
>
> 1) Does the artifact actually included the 3rd party code?
> If not, then it should not be mentioned at all.
>
it does not include the 3rd party source code, only the binary
artifact - and it has to be mentioned because, as reported in their
license,
> "2. R
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:23 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 15:40, Simone Tripodi wrote:
[X] -1 no, do not release it because... (please explain why)
The NOTICE file mentions http://asm.ow2.org/ but the LICENSE file does
>>> not include its LICENSE.
>>
>> ASM is a _transitive_ depe
On 9 December 2011 15:40, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because... (please explain why)
>>> The NOTICE file mentions http://asm.ow2.org/ but the LICENSE file does
>> not include its LICENSE.
>
> ASM is a _transitive_ dependency brought by CGLIB and mentioning it in
> the N
>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because... (please explain why)
>> The NOTICE file mentions http://asm.ow2.org/ but the LICENSE file does
> not include its LICENSE.
ASM is a _transitive_ dependency brought by CGLIB and mentioning it in
the NOTICE file is required for the uber-jar, as expressed in
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> [X] +1 release it
Checked the site, the sha1/md5 checksums, opened sources, all fine for me.
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
On 9 December 2011 14:19, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,I'm writing to call for a vote to release apache
> commons-digester-3.2 based on RC1.
> Please take in consideration that: * broken 3.2 links will be fixed
> once the site will be deployed; * there is a Clirr violation, but 1)
> targe
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-exec-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This i
Hi all guys,I'm writing to call for a vote to release apache
commons-digester-3.2 based on RC1.
Please take in consideration that: * broken 3.2 links will be fixed
once the site will be deployed; * there is a Clirr violation, but 1)
target class is used for internal use only - there is no way use
On 9 December 2011 13:52, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 December 2011 12:10, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > Yes, it's time for a release. All tests now pass, and most of the
>>
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 9 December 2011 12:10, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Yes, it's time for a release. All tests now pass, and most of the
>> serious
>> > issues are now fixed.
>>
>> The tests are
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 12:10, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Yes, it's time for a release. All tests now pass, and most of the serious
> > issues are now fixed.
>
> The tests are very "noisy" at present - there is a lot of output to
> standard ou
Hello.
(1)
To further rationalize the class naming in package "optimization", I propose
the following changes:
* "RealPointValuePair" -> "PointScalarValuePair"
* "VectorialPointValuePair" -> "PointVectorValuePair"
(2)
I wonder whether we could use the "Pair" class (in "util") as a base class
fo
On 9 December 2011 12:10, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yes, it's time for a release. All tests now pass, and most of the serious
> issues are now fixed.
The tests are very "noisy" at present - there is a lot of output to
standard out, which makes it quite tricky to follow the progress of
the
Hi
Yes, it's time for a release. All tests now pass, and most of the serious
issues are now fixed.
However I did promise a few people their patches would get attention, so
first I would like to review and apply the TIFF performance enhancement
patches by Gary Lucas (SANSELAN-56 to 58), and the TI
Question for vote was "Can the next version major version of a project
require Java6? (i.e. drop Java 1.5)"
Results on binding votes:
Christian Grobmeier +1
Gary Gregory +1
Henri Biestro +1
James Carman +1
Jorg Shaible +1
Luc Maisonobe +1
Simone Tripodi +1
Ralph Goers +1
No -1 or 0.
Thanks you a
+1 to a release. Long overdue!
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've a lot of commit activity here recently which is quite welcome.
> What are thoughts on releasing? Can anyone comment on the state of the
> component?
>
> Than you,
>
> Gary
>
>
Hi all,
I've a lot of commit activity here recently which is quite welcome.
What are thoughts on releasing? Can anyone comment on the state of the
component?
Than you,
Gary
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apac
26 matches
Mail list logo
