+1
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 09/10/2013 17:21, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons JCI 1.1 based on RC1.
>
> This is a bug fix release and an update to work with more recent
> versions of its dependencies.
>
>
> Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jci
Did not test very thoroughly but looks good enough to warrant a +1
cheers,
Torsten
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> LICENSE and NOTICE files are present in source archive, as well as source
> and "artifact" jars for each module, but absent in test, test-sources and
> java
LICENSE and NOTICE files are present in source archive, as well as source
and "artifact" jars for each module, but absent in test, test-sources and
javadoc jars. Rules on LICENSE and NOTICE files are a little fuzzy for
convenience binaries, so not a blocker IMO.
Hashes match, PGP sigs check out,
FYI, trunk has been "upgraded" to 2.0 in case that's where we go with
this. If not, feel free to back it out.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> How many people are really using JCI?
>
> All it takes to create jar hel
Le 10/10/2013 20:03, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Really? What about binary compatibility? Call it 2.0 IMO. Now I'll be quiet ;)
Gary, it *is* binary compatible. We are just no longer releasing the
module commons-jci-javac. But you can still mix the released
commons-jci-javac 1.0 with the upcoming co
Le 10/10/2013 20:12, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> I feel incredibly sorry for having to bring up something that looks like
> a minor detail - the copyright year in NOTICE doesn't extend to 2013.
>
> IANAL and all that but I'd feel more comfortable to cast a +1 if this
> was fixed - in fact I've alr
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:10 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> How many people are really using JCI?
All it takes to create jar hell is one project using it which is then
a dependent of a popular project :(
What's the big deal about bumping to 2.0? You get all the API
deletion, additions and twiddling y
On 2013-10-09, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons JCI 1.1 based on RC1.
I feel incredibly sorry for having to bring up something that looks like
a minor detail - the copyright year in NOTICE doesn't extend to 2013.
IANAL and all that but I'd feel more comfortable to
How many people are really using JCI?
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> +1, release it!
>
> Really? What about binary compatibility? Call it 2.0 IMO. Now I'll be quiet ;)
>
> Gary
>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:21
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> +1, release it!
Really? What about binary compatibility? Call it 2.0 IMO. Now I'll be quiet ;)
Gary
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons JCI 1.1 based on RC1.
>>
>> This is
+1, release it!
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons JCI 1.1 based on RC1.
>
> This is a bug fix release and an update to work with more recent
> versions of its dependencies.
>
>
> Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/
Le 10/10/2013 03:18, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Wow, 54 removed methods in org.apache.commons.jci.compilers, that is
> not one method gone in some corner of an impl class. The simple and
> safe route is to go with a 2.0 release and be done with it.
>
> Otherwise, this will just create jar hell for
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 09/10/2013 19:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> - There is no Clirr report which makes it impossible to determine if
>> binary compatibility has been preserved or broken. I do not think I
>> can vote without this report.
>
> I generated a co
I recently learned that folder names for modules MUST match the
artifact ID or some Maven plugins will not behave correctly.
Gary
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 09/10/2013 19:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> - There is no Clirr report which makes it impossible to deter
+1 (onward!)
On 10 October 2013 02:21, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons JCI 1.1 based on RC1.
>
> This is a bug fix release and an update to work with more recent
> versions of its dependencies.
>
>
> Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jci/tags/
Le 09/10/2013 19:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> - There is no Clirr report which makes it impossible to determine if
> binary compatibility has been preserved or broken. I do not think I
> can vote without this report.
I generated a compatibility report with the Java API Compliance Checker:
http:/
Le 09/10/2013 19:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> - There is no Clirr report which makes it impossible to determine if
> binary compatibility has been preserved or broken. I do not think I
> can vote without this report.
Sorry for that, I ran into troubles with the multiple modules and
decided to dro
Hi All:
- There is no Clirr report which makes it impossible to determine if
binary compatibility has been preserved or broken. I do not think I
can vote without this report.
- The PMD errors about JDK 1.4 seem odd. Are these real violations?
- RAT reports one unapproved license for TODO.txt. Th
This is a vote to release Apache Commons JCI 1.1 based on RC1.
This is a bug fix release and an update to work with more recent
versions of its dependencies.
Tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jci/tags/1.1-RC1/ (r1530645)
Release notes:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/p
19 matches
Mail list logo
