You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to notifications@jclouds.apache.org by Jeremy Daggett <no...@github.com> on 2015/01/15 01:40:20 UTC
[jclouds] Update AutoValue to version 1.0 (#646)
AutoValue was [updated](https://github.com/google/auto/commit/c36dbb535c905fb2cdbfa2755f25241d90dbd9c4) to version 1.0 recently! This PR is pretty self-explainatory :smile:
**NOTE:** Downstream repositories broke when making this change initially. I submitted [PR 122](https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/122) in `jclouds-labs` and [PR 123](https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/123) in `jclouds-labs-google` to split out the dependencies into `auto-service` and `auto-value`. They will need to be committed _prior_ to merging this PR!
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/rackspace/jclouds update-autovalue-1.0
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646
-- Commit Summary --
* Update AutoValue to version 1.0
-- File Changes --
M project/pom.xml (2)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646.patch
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646.diff
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646
Re: [jclouds] Update AutoValue to version 1.0 (#646)
Posted by Jeremy Daggett <no...@github.com>.
Pushed to **master** 24f9af7
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646#issuecomment-70350109
Re: [jclouds] Update AutoValue to version 1.0 (#646)
Posted by Jeremy Daggett <no...@github.com>.
@zack-shoylev Glad to be of service! :grinning:
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646#issuecomment-70730960
Re: [jclouds] Update AutoValue to version 1.0 (#646)
Posted by Jeremy Daggett <no...@github.com>.
Merging shortly.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/646#issuecomment-70348852