On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Rahul Akolkar
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> We have fixed a number of bugs since BeanUtils 1.8.0 was released a
>>> year ago and I'd like to release BeanUtils 1
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>> We have fixed a number of bugs since BeanUtils 1.8.0 was released a
>> year ago and I'd like to release BeanUtils 1.8.1
>>
>> [X] +1 Yes go ahead an release based on RC1
>> [ ] -1
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote at Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 23:33:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Oliver Heger
>> wrote:
>>> Are these issues release blockers?
>>>
>>> I'd say if the 1.8.0 release had the same issues, they are not. Otherwise
>>
Niall Pemberton wrote at Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 23:33:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Oliver Heger
> wrote:
>> Are these issues release blockers?
>>
>> I'd say if the 1.8.0 release had the same issues, they are not. Otherwise
>> they should probably be investigated.
>
> I just tested with
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> We have fixed a number of bugs since BeanUtils 1.8.0 was released a
> year ago and I'd like to release BeanUtils 1.8.1
>
> [X] +1 Yes go ahead an release based on RC1
> [ ] -1 No, because...
>
Nits include release notes formatting (line w
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Oliver Heger
wrote:
> Are these issues release blockers?
>
> I'd say if the 1.8.0 release had the same issues, they are not. Otherwise
> they should probably be investigated.
I just tested with IBM JDK 1.6 using ant (m2 doesn't work for me with
that JDK) and the s
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Oliver Heger
wrote:
> Are these issues release blockers?
>
> I'd say if the 1.8.0 release had the same issues, they are not. Otherwise
> they should probably be investigated.
>
Yup, will look over the bits if this vote is still active.
-Rahul
-
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:37 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:13 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> >
>> > <...>
>> >
>> >> This test was copied from MemoryLeakTestCase and the same problem
>> >> occurred for
Are these issues release blockers?
I'd say if the 1.8.0 release had the same issues, they are not.
Otherwise they should probably be investigated.
Oliver
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
Hi Jörg,
Thanks for testing, comments inline...
Niall
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
H
Hi Niall,
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote at Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009 00:03:
>
>> Hi Jörg,
>>
>> Thanks for testing, comments inline...
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> Issues with Sun JDK 1.3.1:
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Source compilable, but a lot of tests fail.
>>
>> Al
On 09/10/2009, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote at Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009 00:13:
>
>
> > On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >> This test was copied from MemoryLeakTestCase and the same problem
> >> occurred for BeanUtils 1.8.0 when you tested with maven1 and IBM J
Niall Pemberton wrote at Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009 00:03:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> Thanks for testing, comments inline...
>
[snip]
>>
>> Issues with Sun JDK 1.3.1:
>> ==
>>
>> Source compilable, but a lot of tests fail.
>
> All the tests pass for me - I was using Ant 1.7.1 and Su
sebb wrote at Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009 00:13:
> On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>> This test was copied from MemoryLeakTestCase and the same problem
>> occurred for BeanUtils 1.8.0 when you tested with maven1 and IBM JDKs.
>> Would be nice to get these tests working (wonder
On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:13 PM, sebb wrote:
> > On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >> This test was copied from MemoryLeakTestCase and the same problem
> >> occurred for BeanUtils 1.8.0 when you tested with maven1 and IBM JDK
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:13 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>> This test was copied from MemoryLeakTestCase and the same problem
>> occurred for BeanUtils 1.8.0 when you tested with maven1 and IBM JDKs.
>> Would be nice to get these tests working (wonder if
On 08/10/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
<...>
> This test was copied from MemoryLeakTestCase and the same problem
> occurred for BeanUtils 1.8.0 when you tested with maven1 and IBM JDKs.
> Would be nice to get these tests working (wonder if they work with IBM
> JDK and ant, rather than maven1)
Hi Jörg,
Thanks for testing, comments inline...
Niall
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> We have fixed a number of bugs since BeanUtils 1.8.0 was released a
>> year ago and I'd like to release BeanUtils 1.8.1
>>
>> [ ] +1 Yes go ahea
Hi Niall,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> We have fixed a number of bugs since BeanUtils 1.8.0 was released a
> year ago and I'd like to release BeanUtils 1.8.1
>
> [ ] +1 Yes go ahead an release based on RC1
> [ ] -1 No, because...
>
> BeanUtils 1.8.1 RC1 is available for review here:
> http://pe
We have fixed a number of bugs since BeanUtils 1.8.0 was released a
year ago and I'd like to release BeanUtils 1.8.1
[ ] +1 Yes go ahead an release based on RC1
[ ] -1 No, because...
BeanUtils 1.8.1 RC1 is available for review here:
http://people.apache.org/~niallp/beanutils-1.8.1-rc1/
Detai
19 matches
Mail list logo
