commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsw.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
Date Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:26:54 GMT
Inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil@steitz.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 23:11
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
> 
> Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Ah, well, in that sprit, then comments on
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22719 would be
> appreciated
> > but I do not expect this to go in 2.0 unless other folks like/need it.
> 
> Looks useful to me. I would go ahead and add it. Here are a couple of
> small comments:
> 
> 1. Yes, the name sucks, but nothing nice jumps out at me. Of the
> alternatives that you have listed, I like "indexOfOccurrence" the best.
> Another one to consider might be "ordinalIndexOf".

b/w the 2, I like indexOfOccurrence better but let's see what other folks
like.

> 
> 2. Make sure to change the method names in the javadoc examples to match
> the chosen name.  Also, the last two examples should probably be
> replaced by one using a * for the integer argument.

I am not fond of that one since I would need to put a "x" or "i" or
something that is not the real answer to the example and since the point of
the method is to pass in a count, an example for both 1 and 2 is nice. I
could add another entry with * and "i" I guess.

gg

> 
> Phil
> 
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil@steitz.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 20:24
> >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> >>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
> >>
> >>Gary Gregory wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'll take the blame for causing any confusion on this one since I had
> >>>committed these Javadoc changes "during" the vote, which was made more
> >>>difficult due to the extremely long email delays caused by the current
> >>
> >>batch
> >>
> >>>of viruses going 'round.
> >>>
> >>>My thought was that we were indeed voting on the build based on tagged
> >>>sources and that any new commits would be in a post >2.0 release (even
> >>>though, these changes being Javadoc changes are "harmless" and
> >>
> >>beneficial to
> >>
> >>>the release IMHO ;-)
> >>>
> >>>If we want to implement a code freeze in our environment on top of
> using
> >>>tags, we could do that. I guess we'd have to vote on it too :-)
> >>
> >>Sorry if I misunderstood things. I thought we were still adding things
> >>to the release. I see no reason to freeze code if we have a tagged
> >>release.  I am +1 for releasing the code prior to the javadoc changes
> >>that occurred during the vote or to adding them and retagging. If that
> >>requires a new vote, then I am OK with that as well.
> >>
> >>In any case, we should not have to stop everything as we wait for the
> >>release to go. I would also very much like to see 2.0 get out the door.
> >>
> >>Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>>Gary
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 00:00
> >>>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> >>>>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Well, if there is a question about policy/process, why not just
> freeze
> >>>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>code and restart the vote?
> >>>>
> >>>>By tagging the CVS, he effectively has frozen the code for the
> Release.
> >>>
> >>I
> >>
> >>>>was simply curious about the policy because, as I said, other projects
> >>>
> >>are
> >>
> >>>>stricter.  For example the HTTPd team has different rules
> >>>>(http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html).
> >>>>
> >>>>A Release Manager makes a release build, and it is automatically an
> >>>
> >>alpha.
> >>
> >>>>It becomes a beta release when at least three Committers have voted
> beta
> >>>>status, and there are more +1 than -1.  It becomes a GA release when
> at
> >>>>least three Committers vote for GA (stable) status, and there are more
> >>>
> >>+1
> >>
> >>>>than -1.  Notice that -1 is not a veto.  Notice, also, that the
> package
> >>>>itself may go through multiple status changes, but no packaging
> changes.
> >>>>The only allowable change is renaming the file to reflect the change
> in
> >>>>status; exceptions can be made if a change in the contents of the
> >>>
> >>tarball
> >>
> >>>>(e.g., someone forgot to add the LICENSE file).  Otherwise, if a
> change
> >>>
> >>in
> >>
> >>>>the CVS needs to be incorporated, it becomes a new release (with a new
> >>>>vote).
> >>>>
> >>>>Other projects, such as Avalon, also roll jars and then vote on them
> as
> >>>
> >>a
> >>
> >>>>Release.  So I was just asking to understand what is established as
> >>>
> >>policy
> >>
> >>>>here.  I wasn't challenging Henri's release.
> >>>>
> >>>>	--- Noel
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message