commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Date Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:05:51 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
>>2.  In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
>>commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
>>Specification-Version: 1.0
>>Implementation-Version: 2.0
> 
> 
> Imp Version done.
> Spec Version not done. Any suggestions on what it should be? 2.0? 2.1?
> Following the format of Collections 1, I think it would be 1.0.

I think it should be 2.1.  The API has changed since 2.0, so there's a 
new specification even though the changes were backwards compatible.

If someone reimplements the collections 2.1 API, and specify 
specification-version 2.0 and implementation-version 6643 (some random 
build number), how would a user know that the implementation contains 
the 2.1 classes (e.g. iterators)?  Hence, I think the spec number should 
be changed when the API changes.  If we release a 2.1.1 bug-fix-only 
release, then the spec would stay at 2.1 since the API specification 
doesn't change.

>>3.  In the .zip distributions (both source and binary), the text files
>>do not have windows line endings.  I'm not sure whether that's such a
>>big deal, but you'd think that windows users that open the LICENSE.txt
>>file in notepad will want to be able to read it.  Same goes for all the
>>source files and such.  Recommend running ant's FixCRLF task on all
>>.txt, .html, .xml, and .java files when the .zip distributions are created.
> 
> Need to test that to make sure it doesn't introduce ^Ms on non-Windows I
> guess. Not done yet.

yeah, this one is a bit semi-controversial, even to myself.  I'd drop my 
-1 even if this wasn't fixed.

> [needs rechecking:
> 
>>4.  Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist" does not
>>generate the exact same binary distribution as what are up on the
>>website.  For the most part, this is probably due to #1, but once that's
>>fixed, this should be done againt to make sure things are ok.   In
>>addition, the distributions that are generated from the "ant dist"
>>result in files with base name of commons-collections-2.0 instead of
>>commons-collections-2.1.  This is due to the component.version specified
>>as 2.0 in the build.xml instead of 2.1.
> 
> 
> Note. I get files with 2.1, then rename them to 2.1_rc2 for the rc. Apart
> from cvs tags which have to be different, I want all other things to say
> 2.1.

agreed.  They just shouldn't be 2.0.  :)

I don't think I'll have time to recheck the rc2 packaging until Sat 
evening, but if someone else can check for the issues I mentioned, 
that'd be great.

regards,
michael



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message