commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodney Waldhoff <>
Subject Re: [VOTE][collections] Functors, dependency from collections to lang
Date Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:18:59 GMT

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > I think this proposal would be more accurately considered a product change
> > (it removes public classes from a released component and adds a new
> > dependency to a released component, arguably it changes the scope of two
> > released components) and hence would require [lazy] consensus approval.
> > I.e., this is a veto-able action.
> I may be missing something but Stephen's proposal is to deprecate and
> not remove public classes from collections.

Clearly the intention behind deprecating a method or class is to remove

> I don't see the issue in adding a dependency on the next release of
> collections.

I haven't (yet) voted on this proposal.  I'm not saying that I do see an
issue with adding a dependency to collections.  I'm not saying that I do
see an issue with deprecating and removing certain classes in collections.
I'm saying that the proposed changes ((i) deprecating (with the intention
of removing) released classes, (ii) adding a new compile-time and run-time
dependency to a released component, (iii) changing the originally proposed
scope of lang, (iv) reducing the scope of the released collections)
constitute a product change which requires lazy consensus approval.  It
doesn't necessarily require a [VOTE] or any formal +1s, but a veto (backed
by legitimate reasons) is binding (the way I read the
ASF/Jakarta/Jakarta-Commons guidelines and this proposal at least).

> Emmanuel

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message