Hi Rob,
Thanks for RM'ing Commons Jelly 1.0.1. Here's my initial tests results:
Downloaded JDK from Oracle archives, version 5.0u22.
Then downloaded Apache Ant following what was in the Dockerfile.
curl
http://archive.apache.org/dist/ant/binaries/apache-ant-1.6.0-bin.tar.gz -o
/tmp/apache-
Hi Oliver,
Thank you for taking your time to review this RC!
Interesting, never paid much attention to what was included in the dist files.
You are correct, and looks like it is defined in each component's assembly XML
file (https://github.com/apache/commons-csv/blob/master/src/assembly/bin.xml
Build works fine with Java 1.7 and 1.8 on Windows 10. Artifacts and site
look good.
Minor nit: The binary distribution only contains the jar and a
sources-jar. Other components ship with some more artifacts like Javadoc
and test jars. But this is not blocking.
+1
Oliver
Am 27.08.2017 um 12:10 s
So I built everything using ant and manually uploaded everything to nexus using
the existent pom.xml in nexus with the version number changed.
The way I ran the build was in that docker container (essentially a VM) with a
directory inside the container mounted to my project directory. That’s the
Hi Rob,
Thank you for preparing the RC.
I think we are going to need a little guidance as to how best test an RC
based on such an old tool set.
This is a Maven 1 project (I see maven.xml)? But I also see a pom.xml so
it's confusing.
No tests run when I use Maven 2 or 3. I can even get a Maven 1
Hello,
Commons Jelly 1.0.1 R2 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/jelly (svn revision 21342)
Note, if anyone needs to get an environment for building and testing the
release candidate, I have created a docker container such that if you are
currently in
Hi Bernd,
Any chance that you will be able to execute the merge soon? I'd like to do some
work based on the new filters and it would be nice to have at least a fresh
Maven snapshot including the change:
Pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/9
Issue: https://issues.apache.org/
On 28 August 2017 at 20:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The question is whether this breaks binary compatibility. If it does, this
> needs fixing. Unless there are other important changes that warrant a major
> version, I would go the sub-interface route; ugly, but workable within the
> same major relea
