Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

Dave Brosius wrote: > i think people understand an early product having breaking changes. The > interface is 'small' enough that having to redo a small amount of change > by clients is not an issue here. Whatever you do, it's likely that you > will get feedback from clients that you don't expect,

Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

i think people understand an early product having breaking changes. The interface is 'small' enough that having to redo a small amount of change by clients is not an issue here. Whatever you do, it's likely that you will get feedback from clients that you don't expect, which probably prompts yo

Re: [fileupload] Links on Download page show old version and go nowhere

Thanks for the report - should be OK now 2016-10-06 12:28 GMT+01:00 Harald Kuhn : > Hi, > > just wanted to let you know that the links on the main download page of > commons fileutil > (http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-fileupload/download_fileupload.cgi) > still show version 1.3.1 and g

[fileupload] Links on Download page show old version and go nowhere

Hi, just wanted to let you know that the links on the main download page of commons fileutil (http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-fileupload/download_fileupload.cgi) still show version 1.3.1 and go to nowhere.. Mit besten Grüßen / Best regards Harald Kuhn Leitung Softwareentwicklung Tel

Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

Le 6/10/2016 à 19:36, Gary Gregory a écrit : > But is the painting considered for 1.1 in risk of breaking BC? If yes, we > need to keep talking or accept that the next release would be a BC-breaking > 2.0. Both are fine with me, we just need to agree on a road-map. Or we publish now a beta releas

Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Dave Brosius wrote: > I'd vote for putting down the paint brushes temporarily and consider the > bike shed done. > > Let's get 1.0 out, and then folks can work on 1.1 while getting feedback > from users, etc. > But is the painting considered for 1.1 in risk of br

Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

I'd vote for putting down the paint brushes temporarily and consider the bike shed done. Let's get 1.0 out, and then folks can work on 1.1 while getting feedback from users, etc. --dave --- On 2016-10-06 11:10, Gilles wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:04:43 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 5

Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

Le 6/10/2016 à 17:10, Gilles a écrit : > Well, you started them. Look, you replied to my message with 100 lines of text, this happens with each of your messages. Sorry but I can't keep up, my time is too limited. Please be synthetic. Emmanuel Bourg --

[RNG] RNG-17 - LFG

Hi, I was considering​ to give a try and implement RNG-17 (LFG), while I'm complete a newbie in RNG topic. So I've read a couple of tutorials and IMO I've got an idea behind the LFG (which doesn't seem that complex). I haven't found in the literatu

Re: [RNG] Release of v1.0: Schedule update

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:04:43 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 5/10/2016 à 18:01, Gilles a écrit : There hasn't been any repository activity concerned with the above reports or other such new features. Were there unanticipated problems? Just lengthy (and not yet finished) discussions :) Well,

[GitHub] commons-io pull request #23: sample pr

Github user adams2016 closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/commons-io/pull/23 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature i

[GitHub] commons-io pull request #23: sample pr

GitHub user adams2016 opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-io/pull/23 sample pr You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/adams-aurea/commons-io master Alternatively you can review and apply these chang