On Jan 31, 2008 4:11 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *ping*
Sorry, Niall, I've been in vacation for one week and was otherwise
busy. I'll do the release today.
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you break 'em.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Thie
*ping*
On Jan 18, 2008 9:46 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a release candidate 4 of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. The SVN tag is commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc4. A list of
> changes since rc3 and things that I haven't changes,
> can be found below.
>
> As usual,
On 1/18/08, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [X] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Niall
On Jan 18, 2008 9:46 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a release candidate 4 of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. The SVN tag is commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc4. A list of
> changes since rc3 and things that I haven't changes,
> can be found below.
>
> As usu
> From: Jochen Wiedmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:40 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc4)
>
> On Jan 20, 2008 7:20 AM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
On Jan 20, 2008 7:20 AM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, this RC builds and tests OK on the 9 SDKs I tested [1]
>
> Gary
>
> [1] http://garygregory.com/os/builds/index.html#commons-fileupload-1.2.1
If so, what prevents you to vote with +1?
--
Look, that's why there's rules, und
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc4)
>
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a release candidate 4 of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. The SVN tag is commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc4. A list of
> changes since rc3 and things that I haven't chang
On 19/01/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> The build works for me in all variants as expected (on JDK 1.6). The
> only minor nit I have is that the Copyright in the Javadocs still looks
> a bit wired (at least on my browser): Instead of the Copyright character
> I only get a "?
+1
The build works for me in all variants as expected (on JDK 1.6). The
only minor nit I have is that the Copyright in the Javadocs still looks
a bit wired (at least on my browser): Instead of the Copyright character
I only get a "?".
Oliver
Jochen Wiedmann schrieb:
Hi,
I have prepared a
On 18/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a release candidate 4 of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. The SVN tag is commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc4. A list of
> changes since rc3 and things that I haven't changes,
> can be found below.
>
> As usual, the proposed dist
Hi,
I have prepared a release candidate 4 of commons-fileupload
1.2.1. The SVN tag is commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc4. A list of
changes since rc3 and things that I haven't changes,
can be found below.
As usual, the proposed distributables can be found on
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons
On Jan 16, 2008 12:00 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems that this is stalled. While I was/am happy with the RC, now that
> commons-parent-7 is out perhaps the pragmatic approach is to just cut
> another RC?
I was waiting for commons-parent-7, which hasn't reached the Maven
re
Hi Jochen,
Seems that this is stalled. While I was/am happy with the RC, now that
commons-parent-7 is out perhaps the pragmatic approach is to just cut
another RC? Also I just added OSGi entries to the manifest and IMO
thats a positive reason for another RC (to be good neighbours to felix
and to b
> From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:56 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
>
On Jan 10, 2008 5:47 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:08 +, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I forgot to note: The distribution is availa
Hi Gary,
Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hello:
>
> The ant build in this RC fails on Sun Java 1.3.1 [1] because
> the unit tests use the XML formatter which depend on W3C
> code. The W3C code is in Java 1.4 but not 1.3. The ant build
> also reports, apparently non-fatal errors [1] when attempting
> to fet
On 1/10/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
> >
> >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist
>
> -1:
> The NOTICE files in the jars are non-standard. They also refer
b01
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochen Wiedmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:16 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)
>
> I forgot to note: The distribution is a
The artifacts look all good to me.
So if a solution/consensus for the problems with NOTICE is found, I am
+1 for this release.
Oliver
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a third release candidate of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. A list of changes since rc2 and things that I haven't c
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:08 +, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
> > >
> > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileup
On 10/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
> > >
> > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupl
On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
> >
> >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist
>
> -1:
> The NOTICE files in the jars are non-standard. Th
What commands are needed to build and test the code?
I could not find the information on the site.
Also, build.xml seems to be out of date, as it refers to junit 3.8.1.
On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
>
>http://pe
On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
>
>http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist
-1:
The NOTICE files in the jars are non-standard. They also refer to
Commons-IO which is not part of the jar. The NOTICE f
On Jan 10, 2008 4:37 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 looks good to me - I guess this is a good advert for the
> remote-resources-plugin, as the manfest looks OK :)
That was my impression too. :-)
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you br
+1 looks good to me - I guess this is a good advert for the
remote-resources-plugin, as the manfest looks OK :)
Niall
On Jan 10, 2008 2:14 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a third release candidate of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. A list of changes since rc2
I forgot to note: The distribution is available on
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist
The proposed site is at
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/site
Sorry,
Jochen
-
To unsubscri
Hi,
I have prepared a third release candidate of commons-fileupload
1.2.1. A list of changes since rc2 and things that I haven't changes,
can be found below.
Thanks,
Jochen
[ ] +1
[ ] =0
[ ] -1
- The pom and jar files of commons-io 1.3.2 have been deployed
again to the m2 repository, this
Just noticed that NOTICE.txt says:
Copyright 2002-2007 The Apache Software Foundation
There are probably some other instances of 2007 which need to be updated.
On 03/01/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The source distros look okay, but can it be that the binary distros are
> missi
The source distros look okay, but can it be that the binary distros are
missing the binaries? Both the zip and the tar.gz only contain LICENSE
and NOTICE and the site directory.
Other than that I only found a few (very minor) points:
- When building with the different build systems the resulting j
On 02/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 8:07 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The format is used by the following programs:
> >
> > md5sum.exe - e.g. http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/using_md5sums.html
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ md5sum derby.log
> 6fce75e
On Jan 2, 2008 8:07 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The format is used by the following programs:
>
> md5sum.exe - e.g. http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/using_md5sums.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ md5sum derby.log
6fce75e538c458f732d622e0a1d4bbdf derby.log
Multiple blanks, no asterisk
> m
On 01/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have prepared a second release candidate of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. A list of changes since rc1 and things that I haven't changes,
> can be found below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ther
On Jan 1, 2008 12:57 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008 9:49 PM, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > H. It looks like something in maven is screwed.
>
> Rats! It's not in Maven.
>
> The pom file is below org.apache.commons, but the groupId in the pom
On Jan 1, 2008 9:49 PM, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. It looks like something in maven is screwed.
Rats! It's not in Maven.
The pom file is below org.apache.commons, but the groupId in the pom
file is commons-io.
I'll copy the pom file and the jar file to commons-io/com
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
When trying the m2 build I got the error that commons-io 1.3.2 could
not be downloaded. Indeed this version does not seem to be in the
central maven repository. Does anybody know why this is the case?
Fixed the groupId to org.apache.commons.
H. It looks like somethi
Hi,
I have prepared a second release candidate of commons-fileupload
1.2.1. A list of changes since rc1 and things that I haven't changes,
can be found below.
Thanks,
Jochen
[ ] +1
[ ] =0
[ ] -1
> There's a minor problem with the hashes.
> The hash shold be followed by a single space, and
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 12/22/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> - The pom.xml is missing the license header.
>>
>
>
> Yup, the pom gets distributed (as part of maven doing what it does),
> so having a license header seems important. However, the m2 release
> plugin strips it
On 12/22/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - The pom.xml is missing the license header.
>
Yup, the pom gets distributed (as part of maven doing what it does),
so having a license header seems important. However, the m2 release
plugin strips it out [1] sometimes (no one clarified wh
Hi,
the artifacts look good to me. I found the following issues:
- The pom.xml is missing the license header.
- The maven 1 build declares its version as 1.3-SNAPSHOT and has a
dependency to commons-io 1.4-SNAPSHOT. In the section an
element for the current release is missing.
- The ant bu
On 19/12/2007, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in order to resolve bug reports like FILEUPLOAD-135, or
> FILEUPLOAD-138, I'd like to cut a 1.2.1 release of commons-fileupload.
>
> A tag commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc1 has been created. The proposed
> binaries can be found at
>
>
Hi,
in order to resolve bug reports like FILEUPLOAD-135, or
FILEUPLOAD-138, I'd like to cut a 1.2.1 release of commons-fileupload.
A tag commons-fileupload-1.2.1rc1 has been created. The proposed
binaries can be found at
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist
The proposed
42 matches
Mail list logo
