pache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/bcel-Next-release-tp4662789p4668718.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Hello,
How is it going with release candidate?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/bcel-Next-release-tp4662789p4668470.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Le 30/10/2014 17:38, anatoliy.balakirev a écrit :
> Oh, great news! Sorry for potentially stupid question, but what is the next
> step? You'll have to live with this release candidate for some time or
> release will follow immediatelly?
If the release candidate pass the vote it will become an offi
Oh, great news! Sorry for potentially stupid question, but what is the next
step? You'll have to live with this release candidate for some time or
release will follow immediatelly?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/bcel-Next-release-tp4662789p46
Le 30/10/2014 15:24, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Perhaps the RM volunteer can set expectations WRT timing.
I'm going to prepare a new RC this weekend.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
Fo
on bcel 6.0 release?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/bcel-Next-release-tp4662789p4668312.html
> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> -
Hi,
Any news on bcel 6.0 release?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/bcel-Next-release-tp4662789p4668312.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To
with
> > the current snapshot.
> >
> > The code on the trunk is numbered 6.0, are we ok with that or should we
> > use 5.3 for the next release?
> >
> > Emmanuel Bourg
> >
> > -----
> &
Le 30/05/2014 19:05, dkulp a écrit :
>
> Is there any update to a possible new BCEL release that would work with
> Java8. This is a blocker for full Java8 support for Apache CXF (due to
> JIBX), Camel (again, JIBX), etc...
Hi Dan,
I'm going to prepare the release next week.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
--
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@.apache
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@.apache
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/bcel-Next-release-tp4662789p4664160.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev ma
-From: sebb
> Date:04/25/2014 17:50 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [bcel] Next release
> Also, JDK 1.4 is really old now; it's highly unlikely that anyone is
> stuck on it.
>
> But if there are other significant changes I don't object t
We should update the JRE requirement to a least java 6.
G
Original message From: sebb
Date:04/25/2014 17:50 (GMT-05:00) To: Commons
Developers List Subject: Re: [bcel] Next
release
Also, JDK 1.4 is really old now; it's highly unlikely that anyone is
stuck on it.
B
Also, JDK 1.4 is really old now; it's highly unlikely that anyone is
stuck on it.
But if there are other significant changes I don't object to a major
version bump.
On 25 April 2014 15:49, Gary Gregory wrote:
> FWIW: We've changed Java requirements in minor releases before.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Fri
FWIW: We've changed Java requirements in minor releases before.
Gary
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dave Brosius wrote:
> I think it should be 6.0 since we've changed from requiring jdk1.4 to
> jdk1.5 and that really shouldn't be done on a point release.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> On 2014-04-25 08:57
I think it should be 6.0 since we've changed from requiring jdk1.4 to
jdk1.5 and that really shouldn't be done on a point release.
---
On 2014-04-25 08:57, Gary Gregory wrote:
Either version # is fine with me.
Gary
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Torsten Curdt
wrote:
Go go go! Thanks
That that I think about it, sem ver says we should do 6.0 next, so let's do
that.
Next we should discuss if we should change package names.
Gary
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> I'm not sure we should rush this... this my be the way to jar hell. But I'm
> not using BC
I'm not sure we should rush this... this my be the way to jar hell. But I'm
not using BCEL in my projects so I can not really tell if it's a problem.
2014-04-25 14:57 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory :
> Either version # is fine with me.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote
Either version # is fine with me.
Gary
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Go go go! Thanks for looking into this :)
>
> IIRC there is so much stuff fixed and changed from 5.2 - I think
> calling it 6.0 expresses this better than 5.3.
> Especially with the changes to the vi
Go go go! Thanks for looking into this :)
IIRC there is so much stuff fixed and changed from 5.2 - I think
calling it 6.0 expresses this better than 5.3.
Especially with the changes to the visitor interface.
cheers,
Torsten
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I
Hi all,
I'm currently working on the migration to Java 8 in Debian and several
packages are broken due to the lack of invokedynamic support in BCEL 5.2
(the dreaded ClassFormatException: Invalid byte tag in constant pool:
18). I think it's high time for a release. Even if the current code
isn't pe
On 07/19/2011 05:03 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
+1 for using 1.5
So then let's call it 6.0? ...and work through bugzilla towards a release?
I agree with naming it 6.0. Another more important reason is that this
version of bcel is backwards incompatible with previous releases, in
this regard:
+1 for using 1.5
So then let's call it 6.0? ...and work through bugzilla towards a release?
cheers,
Torsten
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.or
On 19/07/2011 05:03, Dave Brosius wrote:
> If we can agree that BCEL will have a minimum requirement of 1.5 for the
> next version, then we should probably actually use 1.5 throughout on
> purpose, rather than by accident. I'd be happy to participate in making
> these changes. Can we vote on that p
On 18/07/2011 23:17, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Tomcat 7.0.x is using a sub-set of BCEL for annotation scanning without
>> any problems.
>
> using trunk directly? ...or are you saying it's covered through tests
> and so it's another project that tests BCEL's usage through Gump?
I'll try and be clear
- Mail original -
De: "Dave Brosius"
Cc: "Commons Developers List"
Envoyé: Mardi 19 Juillet 2011 06:03:11
Objet: Re: [BCEL] Next release
If we can agree that BCEL will have a minimum requirement of 1.5 for the
next version, then we should probably actually u
On Jul 19, 2011, at 0:04, Dave Brosius wrote:
> If we can agree that BCEL will have a minimum requirement of 1.5 for the next
> version, then we should probably actually use 1.5 throughout on purpose,
> rather than by accident. I'd be happy to participate in making these changes.
> Can we vote
If we can agree that BCEL will have a minimum requirement of 1.5 for the
next version, then we should probably actually use 1.5 throughout on
purpose, rather than by accident. I'd be happy to participate in making
these changes. Can we vote on that part of it at least, so that work
could start?
On 2011-07-19, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> I say what I've said all this time when questions like this came up.
>>> We need testers! There has been quite few changes. Just releasing
>>> without some people spending some time ...or telling us "yes, trunk
>>> works for me!" I am still not comfortable w
> Tomcat 7.0.x is using a sub-set of BCEL for annotation scanning without
> any problems.
using trunk directly? ...or are you saying it's covered through tests
and so it's another project that tests BCEL's usage through Gump?
cheers,
Torsten
--
>> I say what I've said all this time when questions like this came up.
>> We need testers! There has been quite few changes. Just releasing
>> without some people spending some time ...or telling us "yes, trunk
>> works for me!" I am still not comfortable with.
>
> trunk works for everything execu
On 18/07/2011 20:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-07-18, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>>> I'm all for it.
>
>> I say what I've said all this time when questions like this came up.
>> We need testers! There has been quite few changes. Just releasing
>> without some people spending some time ...or tel
On 2011-07-18, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> I'm all for it.
> I say what I've said all this time when questions like this came up.
> We need testers! There has been quite few changes. Just releasing
> without some people spending some time ...or telling us "yes, trunk
> works for me!" I am still not c
> I'm all for it.
I say what I've said all this time when questions like this came up.
We need testers! There has been quite few changes. Just releasing
without some people spending some time ...or telling us "yes, trunk
works for me!" I am still not comfortable with.
> But there needs to be a de
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Dave Brosius wrote:
> I'm all for it. But there needs to be a decision which seems clear cut to me.
> There is code in the code base (by accident--i suppose) now that requires
> 1.5. Previously we didn't have that requirement, so pushing out a release
> means r
I'm all for it. But there needs to be a decision which seems clear cut to me.
There is code in the code base (by accident--i suppose) now that requires 1.5.
Previously we didn't have that requirement, so pushing out a release means
raising the minimum to 1.5. My vote is lets do it two both. But
Hi!
Almost a year ago, I've asked for a new release of BCEL, in order to
make the annotation handling included in trunk available to the masses.
http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01121.html
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.bcel.user/1177
There was no reply at
36 matches
Mail list logo
