Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

I'd much rather an imperfect version of BCEL be released than we continue to wait for perfection and never release. I'm very concerned that we're going to be waiting at least a year for the 6.0 release. Mark submitted about a dozen issues around six weeks ago and probably only one or two have been

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

+1 to releasing an Alpha or making 6.0-RC3 available via Maven. Compiling it ourselves is a really painful solution. It means we also need to setup our own public Maven repository or make other drastic changes to our release engineering. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > We c

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Dave, we'd still appreciate your comment on BCEL-209 if you can take a look: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-209 Thanks, Ben On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 23/02/2015 14:11, Dave Brosius a écrit : > > > One specific case is that annotations are now comin

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Ok, thanks. The part I wasn't sure about is if that was the only breaking change. It sounds like you're saying the other changes aren't breaking. -Ben On Feb 22, 2015 11:14 PM, "Emmanuel Bourg" wrote: > Le 23/02/2015 05:39, Ben McCann a écrit : > > > Are m

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

Hi Mark, Are many of your changes breaking backward compatibility? I'm wondering if there are only a few that do if we could prioritize them in order to get a 6.0 release out with the rest of the changes coming in a 6.1. Thanks, Ben On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > I am

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Is BCEL-209 the only pending issue that would break binary compatibility? Perhaps we could prioritize the issues that would break compatibility. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 2015-02-19 16:14 GMT+01:00 Ben McCann : > > > Why do you say users would have t

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 2015-02-19 16:06 GMT+01:00 Emmanuel Bourg : > > > Le 19/02/2015 15:17, Ben McCann a écrit : > > > Perhaps if there are only a few breaking changes we could prioritize > > > reviewing those first and leave the rest for 6.1. Alternativel

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

> Le 19/02/2015 14:59, Ben McCann a écrit : > > > Mark, do any of your pending changes break binary compatibility? If so, > do > > you mind sharing which do and which don't. It could be nice to release a > > 6.0 now and then release a 6.1 with your changes and any b

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

45 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 2015-02-19 5:11 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory : > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Ben McCann wrote: > > > > > Would it be possible to release 6.0 now and release Mark's patches as > 6.1 > > > or 7.0? I'm concerne

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

th of time between releases grows the number of custom patches each user has to separately maintain in each library depending on BCEL grows. Right now it has been nine years. Thanks, Ben On Feb 10, 2015 1:53 AM, "Ben McCann" wrote: > Great, thanks for the update! > > Btw, for

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Great, thanks for the update! Btw, for those not familiar with which issues those are, here's a list of the ones Mark raised that are not yet resolved: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-79 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-195 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-196 https:

Re: [bcel] PLSE changes to BCEL

BCEL-79 has not been reopened yet The new issues have been filed as BCEL-187 through BCEL-193 . Are any of these blocking the 6.0 release or do you think we might be able to cut that now? Thanks, Ben

Re: Anyone interested in regular expressions, again?

That's be awesome James. I'd love to see re2j out in the open On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, James Ring wrote: > I spoke to one of the authors of re2j, a Google-internal port of the C++ > re2 library. The intention was to open source it but they just haven't got > around to it. > > I may try an

Re: Anyone interested in regular expressions, again?

I like the idea. I've run into this problem before. The library I've been most familiar with is re2 for C++, but a popular Java version would be great. On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 1/31/15 8:58 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > So, onc

Re: [Math] Java version

I vote Java 7. We haven't been able to upgrade all our infrastructure to Java 8 yet because of a few issues. One of which could be fixed by someone from Commons Dev cutting a new release of BCEL. The last one got voted down, but I have a patch for the issues that blocked the release here: https://i

Re: [ALL] Too much traffic on the "dev" ML

I find the whole I idea of a mailing list very 1990s. I'd much prefer something like Google Groups where I can set my notification preferences easily to send me updates only on certain threads such as threads I've started, which has a nice easily browsable and searchable web interface, and where I

BCEL patch for review

Hi, I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at and commit my BCEL patch: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-186 This patch implements the suggested fix for an issue that is blocking a BCEL release. Thanks, Ben -- about.me/benmccann

Re: When is the Math Lib 2.1 released?

I personally don't know when final version of 2.1 will be released, but you can check out and compile Commons Math from the Subversion repository to get the fixes: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/trunk Maybe Luc or others know more about the 2.1 roadmap. 2010/1/7 손기섭 > Hi.