Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27764&projectId=294
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 03:20:47 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 03:21:00 +
Total time: 12s
Build Trig
I've been trying to add a Continuum build for the 1_5 branch, but it won't take.
This may perhaps be due to the fact that the 1_4 branch also uses the
same version, i.e.
1.4.1-SNAPSHOT
Is this intended, or should the 1_5 branch be using a different version?
If the version could (should) be chan
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27763&projectId=294
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 03:00:02 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 03:00:21 +
Total time: 18s
Build Trig
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27762&projectId=293
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 02:51:43 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 02:51:55 +
Total time: 11s
Build Trig
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27759&projectId=107
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 01:13:31 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 01:15:58 +
Total time: 2m 26s
Build Trigger: Forc
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27758&projectId=107
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 01:06:43 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 01:09:13 +
Total time: 2m 30s
Build Trigger: Forc
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27757&projectId=107
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 00:41:02 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 00:43:28 +
Total time: 2m 26s
Build Trigger: Forc
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27756&projectId=96
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 00:26:43 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 00:27:50 +
Total time: 1m 6s
Build Tri
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27755&projectId=76
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 00:12:53 +
Finished at: Sun 12 Jan 2014 00:13:08 +
Total time: 15s
Build Trigg
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27753&projectId=76
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 23:52:43 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 23:52:57 +
Total time: 14s
Build Trigger: Forced
Bui
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27750&projectId=65
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 23:22:56 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 23:24:35 +
Total time: 1m 39s
Build Trigger: Force
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27747&projectId=65
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 20:20:05 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 20:20:13 +
Total time: 8s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build is successful with JDK 1.7 and 1.6 under Windows 7. It fails for
me with Java 1.5 with the errors below. (I remember that I had similar
problems with older releases in the past, so this is not blocking.)
Site and artifacts look good.
There is a problem with the source distribution: It defla
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27744&projectId=73
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 19:20:13 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 19:20:41 +
Total time: 27s
Build Trigger: Schedule
B
+1
The reports look good BUT I think the NEW code should have better code
coverage. There seems to be some non-trivial code that is not tested at all.
Built and tested from the tag with 'mvn clean site' using:
Apache Maven 3.1.1 (0728685237757ffbf44136acec0402957f723d9a; 2013-09-17
11:22:22-0400
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2014/1/11 Gary Gregory
>
> > The parent POM does this already.
> >
>
> I don't think the ant build know about the parent pom, does it?
>
You're right. It would be nice if the Ant build could access the same
information from the POM. That
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:00 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 January 2014 12:40, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Don't forget about ? and Object...
>
> Remind me again what you mean here?
>
If anything can indeed be a map value or key, you can still define generics
with a ? or Object (depending on the case). T
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27741&projectId=65
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 17:20:06 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 17:20:16 +
Total time: 10s
Build Trigger: Schedule
+1
Tested on Windows with Java 7u45
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 11/01/2014 16:15, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> Hi all
>
> current trunk contains two new read-only compression algorithms but more
> importantly it fixes serious bugs in the tar and 7z packages. As
> indicated a few weeks ago a new release i
The vote to release Commons BeanUtils 1.9.1 based on RC1 has passed with
the following votes:
Thomas Neidhart: +1
Benedikt Ritter: +1
Phil Steitz: +1
Gary Gregory: +1
Oliver Heger: +1
All votes are binding.
Thanks for all votes and reviews.
Oliver
Am 06.01.2014 21:36, schri
Hi all
current trunk contains two new read-only compression algorithms but more
importantly it fixes serious bugs in the tar and 7z packages. As
indicated a few weeks ago a new release is overdue.
Compress 1.7 RC1 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/c
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27738&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 14:32:40 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 14:34:16 +
Total time: 1m 36s
Build Trigger: Force
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27737&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 14:26:00 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 14:26:05 +
Total time: 5s
Build Trigger: Forced
Hi,
while looking through the open issues for lang, I came across LANG-823:
StringUtils.split should handle empty strings the same as other content
[1]. The request makes sense to me - the empty string should be handled
like any other content.
Then I looked into StringUtils to see how other metho
D'oh my fault, sorry about that.
2014/1/11
> Author: sebb
> Date: Sat Jan 11 13:35:39 2014
> New Revision: 1557388
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1557388
> Log:
> Fix up class name
>
> Modified:
>
> commons/proper/exec/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/exec/environment/EnvironmentUtilsTes
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27733&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 13:32:31 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 13:32:44 +
Total time: 12s
Build Trigger: Forced
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27732&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 13:27:04 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 13:27:09 +
Total time: 5s
Build Trigge
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27730&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 13:20:23 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 13:20:42 +
Total time: 18s
Build Trigger: Schedule
2014/1/11 Gary Gregory
> The parent POM does this already.
>
I don't think the ant build know about the parent pom, does it?
>
> G
>
> Original message
> From: brit...@apache.org
> Date:01/11/2014 06:56 (GMT-05:00)
> To: comm...@commons.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r15
On 11 January 2014 12:40, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Don't forget about ? and Object...
Remind me again what you mean here?
> G
>
> Original message
> From: sebb AT ASF
> Date:01/11/2014 06:44 (GMT-05:00)
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: [EXEC] generics for EnvironmentUtil
exec2 is fair game at this point IMO.
G
Original message
From: Benedikt Ritter
Date:01/11/2014 06:28 (GMT-05:00)
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [exec] Java 5 and generics
2014/1/11 sebb
> On 11 January 2014 10:50, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm
The parent POM does this already.
G
Original message
From: brit...@apache.org
Date:01/11/2014 06:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: comm...@commons.apache.org
Subject: svn commit: r1557357 - /commons/proper/lang/trunk/build.xml
Author: britter
Date: Sat Jan 11 11:56:00 2014
New Revision
Don't forget about ? and Object...
G
Original message
From: sebb AT ASF
Date:01/11/2014 06:44 (GMT-05:00)
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: [EXEC] generics for EnvironmentUtils
I reverted the contentious generics change.
However, I'm not sure there really is a problem
The length of the build is not an issue IMO. It's only a couple of minutes.
G
Original message
From: Benedikt Ritter
Date:01/11/2014 06:28 (GMT-05:00)
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [exec] Java 5 and generics
2014/1/11 sebb
> On 11 January 2014 10:50, Bened
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27728&projectId=80
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 12:20:22 +
Finished at: Sat 11 Jan 2014 12:20:37 +
Total time: 15s
Build Trigger: Schedule
B
Hello Sebb,
2014/1/11 sebb AT ASF
> I reverted the contentious generics change.
>
> However, I'm not sure there really is a problem here.
>
> Adding the "wrong" generics can only affect existing users that also
> use generics, i.e. they must be using Java 1.5+
> Now if a Java 5 client calls a
I reverted the contentious generics change.
However, I'm not sure there really is a problem here.
Adding the "wrong" generics can only affect existing users that also
use generics, i.e. they must be using Java 1.5+
Now if a Java 5 client calls a non-generic library, they are going to
have to eit
2014/1/11 sebb
> On 11 January 2014 10:50, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm working on it, but you're invited to help out ;-)
> >
> > Currently I'm not sure if we're going in the right direction here. The
> exec
> > website says that exec fill the need for something like ProcessBuilder
On 11 January 2014 10:50, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on it, but you're invited to help out ;-)
>
> Currently I'm not sure if we're going in the right direction here. The exec
> website says that exec fill the need for something like ProcessBuilder in
> Java < 5. In Java > 5 you w
Hi Sebb,
2014/1/11
> Author: sebb
> Date: Sat Jan 11 10:34:22 2014
> New Revision: 1557338
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1557338
> Log:
> Initial stab at generics
>
> Modified:
>
> commons/proper/exec/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/exec/CommandLine.java
>
> commons/proper/exec/trunk/s
Hi,
I'm working on it, but you're invited to help out ;-)
Currently I'm not sure if we're going in the right direction here. The exec
website says that exec fill the need for something like ProcessBuilder in
Java < 5. In Java > 5 you would probably use the ProcessBuilder directly.
Now we have upd
On 11 January 2014 02:17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Now that [exec] has 'graduated' to Java 5, we are getting a bunch of
> generics raw warnings.
>
> It would be nice to get these cleaned up ;)
Had a quick look.
Some fixes look easy, but some are not immediately obvious - for
example, the
42 matches
Mail list logo
