[ANNOUNCE] Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0-incubating released

The Apache CommonsRDF team is proud to announce the latest release of Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0. Apache Commons RDF aims to provide a common library for RDF 1.1 that could be implemented by systems on the Java Virtual Machine (e.g., Apache Jena or Eclipse RDF4J). The main motivation behind this simp

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0-incubating released

OK, I'll re-issue the announcement. Apologize for the deficiencies in the first one. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:42 AM, sebb wrote: > >> There are quite a few typos in the e-mail below, and it does not make >> it clear that the code is underg

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons FileUpload 1.3.2 based on RC1

Oliver Heger schrieb am Do., 26. Mai 2016 um 21:56 Uhr: > For the record, I voted +1, too. > Yes, sorry! Must have missed that when counting votes. > > Oliver > > Am 26.05.2016 um 21:35 schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > > This vote passes with the following votes: > > > > - Gary Gregory: +1 > > - Joc

Re: jsvc build not recognizing ARM as valid platform

[Adding Commons Dev ML to the TO list of this thread] Roman, Well, we have no plans to release ATM. We need an Apache volunteer to step up that has all the right software to process a release. So my answer is unsatisfactory I know. You could ask on the dev ML with a subject like "Can we get a re

Re: [Poll][VFS] Switch to Git

+1 for git everywhere On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:14 PM Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > +1 (for all components) > > Jochen > > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > +1 > > > > Ralph > > > >> On May 25, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Bernd Eckenfels > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I would

Re: [Vfs] to git (was: Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers)

On May 26, 2016 2:31 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Who wants to do the first one? That person could doc the experience for the > > next person. > > Pointing to the next person in the circle (clockwise). Dang it! No one told me about th

Re: [Vfs] to git (was: Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers)

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Who wants to do the first one? That person could doc the experience for the > next person. Pointing to the next person in the circle (clockwise). Jochen - To unsubscribe,

Re: [Vfs] to git (was: Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers)

Who wants to do the first one? That person could doc the experience for the next person. Gary On May 26, 2016 2:13 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes > wrote: > > > We can start with VFS, then perhaps IO and Collections? > > Fine with me. Could w

Re: [Poll][VFS] Switch to Git

+1 (for all components) Jochen On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > +1 > > Ralph > >> On May 25, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I would like to be able to use Git with the Apache Commons VFS repo. As >> we agreed upon I call out the intention to d

Re: [Vfs] to git (was: Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers)

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > We can start with VFS, then perhaps IO and Collections? Fine with me. Could we add Fileupload to the queue as the next element? Jochen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev

Re: [Poll][VFS] Switch to Git

+1 Ralph > On May 25, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > Hello, > > I would like to be able to use Git with the Apache Commons VFS repo. As > we agreed upon I call out the intention to do this and ask you for your > oppinion. > > Now that we have the 2.1 release out of the way the s

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers

I wish we didn’t have to use SVN for site publication. Due to infra’s restrictions on home.apache.org I had to publish the Log4j rc candidate web site at github.io instead of at people.apache.org like I used to. It took m

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-configuration #4

See -- [...truncated 516 lines...] AU src/main/java/org/apache/commons/configuration2/builder/DatabaseBuilderParametersImpl.java AU src/main/java/org/apache/commons/configuration2/build

Build failed in Jenkins: Commons-configuration #3

See Changes: [oheger] [CONFIGURATION-632] Updated changes.xml. [oheger] [CONFIGURATION-632] Better support for interpolation with arrays. Variables that reference properties with multiple values are now handled correctly. The getLi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons FileUpload 1.3.2 based on RC1

For the record, I voted +1, too. Oliver Am 26.05.2016 um 21:35 schrieb Benedikt Ritter: > This vote passes with the following votes: > > - Gary Gregory: +1 > - Jochen Wiedmann: +1 > - Benedikt Ritter: +1 > - Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 > - Bernd Eckenfels: +1 > > I'll continue with the release proc

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons FileUpload 1.3.2 based on RC1

This vote passes with the following votes: - Gary Gregory: +1 - Jochen Wiedmann: +1 - Benedikt Ritter: +1 - Stian Soiland-Reyes: +1 - Bernd Eckenfels: +1 I'll continue with the release procedure. Thank you for reviewing! Benedikt Benedikt Ritter schrieb am Mo., 23. Mai 2016 um 17:23 Uhr: > It

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0-incubating released

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:42 AM, sebb wrote: > There are quite a few typos in the e-mail below, and it does not make > it clear that the code is undergoing incubation. > > The e-mail should include the Incubation Disclaimer. > For example see the Mynewt announce message dated May 6th. > > I think

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0-incubating released

There are quite a few typos in the e-mail below, and it does not make it clear that the code is undergoing incubation. The e-mail should include the Incubation Disclaimer. For example see the Mynewt announce message dated May 6th. I think the announce mail should be re-issued with the appropriate

Re: Checkstyle with LICENSE-header.txt vs. RAT

+1, drop Checkstyle license checks. We need the RAT report for the site, so using Checkstyle as well is wasted effort. On 26 May 2016 at 10:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > +1 > > However be aware it is not quite the same, as RAT also permits a license > header with different formatting/indenti

Re: [Vfs] to git (was: Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers)

On 26 May 2016 at 11:44, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On 25 May 2016 at 20:06, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >> I haven't done git migrations too often. The last time I can remember, all >> the issues on github were closed automatically. I don't remember why. INFRA >> had to reopen the issues manually.

Re: svn commit: r1745314 - in /commons/proper/fileupload/tags: commons-fileupload-1.3.2/ commons-fileupload-1.3.2RC1/

On 25 May 2016 at 12:14, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > >> I think the tag got created when Jochen played around with the >> maven-release-plugin. I didn't notice when I created the RC we're currently >> voting for. The tag can probably be dropp

Re: [Vfs] to git (was: Apache Commons git repositories now writable for all ASF committers)

On 25 May 2016 at 20:06, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > I haven't done git migrations too often. The last time I can remember, all > the issues on github were closed automatically. I don't remember why. INFRA > had to reopen the issues manually. OK, that's another good argument for doing it one by one

Re: Stian to PMC

On 25 May 2016 at 20:08, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Benedikt Ritter schrieb am Mi., 25. Mai 2016 um > 19:35 Uhr: >> I can grant you the necessary karma when I'm back to my machine. > I have added you to the commons-developers group. Thank you, seems to work! :) -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Com

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons FileUpload 1.3.2 based on RC1

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > RELEASE-NOTES.txt contains the site link as http instead of https, I > had the impression we wanted to switch the defaults? Should be sufficient to keep that in mind for the future, as the http URL still works. It is something, we all go

Re: Checkstyle with LICENSE-header.txt vs. RAT

+1 However be aware it is not quite the same, as RAT also permits a license header with different formatting/indenting, which could be seen as breaking the visual style. :) On 26 May 2016 7:41 a.m., "Benedikt Ritter" wrote: > +1 > > Gary Gregory schrieb am Mi., 25. Mai 2016 um > 23:54: > > > Hi