rtant features than we wohld use in 7 (what java 7
> feature you would want to use?)
> >
> > But I am fine with both
> >
> > --
> > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gary Gregory
> > To: Commons Developers List
&g
mmons Developers List
> Cc: Josh Elser
> Sent: Fr., 29 Apr. 2016 0:16
> Subject: Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan
>
> Why don't we bring [vfs] 2.1 from Java 6 to 7 and update 3rd party
> components?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Gary Gregory
we wohld use in 7 (what java 7 feature you would want
to use?)
But I am fine with both
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
-Original Message-
From: Gary Gregory
To: Commons Developers List
Cc: Josh Elser
Sent: Fr., 29 Apr. 2016 0:16
Subject: Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan
Why don't we
Because we should make a release of the code that's ready to go now :)
I think it's fine to drop 1.6 support, but if it's going to involve more
code changes, I don't think it should happen for 2.1. If it's just a
matter of tweaking the compiler-plugin, that's fine.
I hope to look at this all
Why don't we bring [vfs] 2.1 from Java 6 to 7 and update 3rd party
components?
Gary
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
> and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31
On 27 April 2016 at 17:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
> One thing to be wary of - Most, if not all, of the other Commons projects are
> not multi-module projects. I remember specifically having to do “interesting”
> things in the VFS pom to fix things that didn’t work correctly in
> commons-parent. I a
No worries. I am very familiar with fixing goofed-up Maven projects. The
warning is appreciated.
Ralph Goers wrote:
One thing to be wary of - Most, if not all, of the other Commons projects are
not multi-module projects. I remember specifically having to do “interesting”
things in the VFS pom
One thing to be wary of - Most, if not all, of the other Commons projects are
not multi-module projects. I remember specifically having to do “interesting”
things in the VFS pom to fix things that didn’t work correctly in
commons-parent. I am sure over the course of time a lot of that has change
Thanks, Sebb and Ralph.
I can dig through the parent poms. I wouldn't have initially realized
that there was a "commons" parent pom. Thanks for pointing that out.
sebb wrote:
On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers wrote:
As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven rele
Hello,
see inline.
Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser:
Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
could potentially block the re
On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers wrote:
> As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release
> plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to
> be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s
> build.
>
> A
As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release
plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be
done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s
build.
As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running
Hello,
see inline.
Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser :
> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>
> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
> could potentially blo
Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of fixVersion=2.1.
Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which could potentially
block the release of 2.1?
I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
maven-
Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
Gary
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels
wrote:
> Hello Josh,
>
> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest
Hello Josh,
I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am
Best as I can see, Benson was able to do the commons-io 2.5 release
after someone else added his key to the KEYS file (because had some
separate karma being applied to it which was not included in the
universal-commit change).
Consider this my formal volunteer offer to be RM for commons-vfs 2.
Thanks Matt and Gary.
I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies to
commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am only
interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release cut that
we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that
It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?" A few
people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and committed his GPG
key.
On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release ASAP
> without fixing m
Hi,
Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release ASAP
without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer, so feel
free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member perform
Hi all,
There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like blockers to me).
The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big problem
downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by bugs that have
been
21 matches
Mail list logo
