Re: [configuration] Checkstyle settings

Am 01.08.2016 um 21:31 schrieb Oliver Heger: > Am 31.07.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Matt Sicker: >> Fixing all the checkstyle errors first is kind of a prerequisite to >> enabling it by default. >> >> On 31 July 2016 at 15:10, Charles Honton wrote: >> >>> Why wouldn’t we want build to fail early if inco

[MATH]: Current state of project?

Hello everyone, It's been a while since there was a lot of hot discussion regarding the future of the CM project, however I do not think that clear agreement was reached. The reason I'm wondering is because I'd like to contribute to the project and in fact already did, but doesn't looks like it go

RE: [VOTE] Release CRYPTO 1.0.0 based on RC1

+1 (non-binding) Verified locally, UT passed. Regards, Xianda -Original Message- From: Sun, Dapeng [mailto:dapeng@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:25 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: [VOTE] Release CRYPTO 1.0.0 based on RC1 Hi all, Apache Commons CRYPTO was estab

Re: [VOTE] Release DBCP 2.2 based on RC1

It very well could be. The basic OSGi tests in log4j could work here as this would have failed such a test. On 1 August 2016 at 16:13, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > There's something wrong with the OSGi manifest. javax.transaction is > > imported

Jenkins build is back to normal : commons-dbcp #6

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Jenkins build is back to normal : commons-dbcp » Apache Commons DBCP #6

See - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Another thing: The whole point of adding checkstyle check to the build is > to have the build fail when there are violations. Otherwise, just look at > the report on the generated site. > > It seems to me that the options are: > - Remove the c

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

Another thing: The whole point of adding checkstyle check to the build is to have the build fail when there are violations. Otherwise, just look at the report on the generated site. It seems to me that the options are: - Remove the check from the build - Fix the code. My previous questions still

Re: [VOTE] Release DBCP 2.2 based on RC1

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > There's something wrong with the OSGi manifest. javax.transaction is > imported twice in the manifest and that causes an error at runtime. I need > to investigate further, but this could be a blocker. > Could this be added as a unit test using

Re: [VOTE] Release DBCP 2.2 based on RC1

There's something wrong with the OSGi manifest. javax.transaction is imported twice in the manifest and that causes an error at runtime. I need to investigate further, but this could be a blocker. On 1 August 2016 at 14:55, Oliver Heger wrote: > Build works fine with Java 1.7 and 1.8 on Windows

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

Am 01.08.2016 um 21:50 schrieb Gary Gregory: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Oliver Heger > wrote: > >> >> >> Am 01.08.2016 um 11:04 schrieb Dennis Kieselhorst: >>> Hi Benedikt! >>> The build log is here [1]. It looks like some generated classes are >> checked by checkstyle which c

Re: [VOTE] Release DBCP 2.2 based on RC1

Build works fine with Java 1.7 and 1.8 on Windows 10. Artifacts and site look good. +1, great work! Oliver Am 31.07.2016 um 00:15 schrieb Matt Sicker: > We have fixed quite aWe have fixed quite a few bugs and added some > significant enhancements since DBCP 2.1.1 was released, so I would like to

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Oliver Heger wrote: > > > Am 01.08.2016 um 11:04 schrieb Dennis Kieselhorst: > > Hi Benedikt! > > > >> The build log is here [1]. It looks like some generated classes are > checked > >> by checkstyle which causes the build to fail. The build works with Java > 7 >

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

Am 01.08.2016 um 11:04 schrieb Dennis Kieselhorst: > Hi Benedikt! > >> The build log is here [1]. It looks like some generated classes are checked >> by checkstyle which causes the build to fail. The build works with Java 7 >> and Java 8. So my vote again is -1 because I think mvn clean install

Re: [configuration] Checkstyle settings

Am 31.07.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Matt Sicker: > Fixing all the checkstyle errors first is kind of a prerequisite to > enabling it by default. > > On 31 July 2016 at 15:10, Charles Honton wrote: > >> Why wouldn’t we want build to fail early if incorrect style is used? In this special case, the b

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

+1 (non-binding) So far I've checked: signatures and digests, source releases file layouts, matched svn commit id, NOTICE and LICENSE files, license headers, build sources in a clean environment (Maven 3.3.9, OpenJDK 1.8.0_91 64-Bit, Debian amd64). On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dennis Kieselh

Re: [VOTE] Release Configuration 2.1 based on RC2

Hi Benedikt! > The build log is here [1]. It looks like some generated classes are checked > by checkstyle which causes the build to fail. The build works with Java 7 > and Java 8. So my vote again is -1 because I think mvn clean install should > work with the minimum required JDK out of the box.