commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject Re: [digester] Release Candidate 1.7 RC2 ready for review
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:04:45 GMT
Hi Phil,

Thanks very much for having a look at this.

*** Reports from anyone else would still be very welcome***

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 15:50 -0400, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >  * download and unpack the src and bin distributions, and
> >    verify that the contents are all as expected
> Looks good.  Checked maven and ant builds and both ran fine.  I used
> the jar versions from the maven dependency list (pulled from my local
> maven repo) to test the ant build.  It might be good to doc the
> required versions in or in a README for ant
> users.

I don't like having the version info in multiple places, as later
releases might mistakenly not update them all. However I have added a
comment in the file pointing people at the
project.xml or RELEASE-NOTES.txt. The RELEASE-NOTES.txt is actually the
best source of info at the moment, as there are several combinations of
valid dependencies.

>    The xml-apis dependency in project.xml does not appear in the
> ant build and maven test works without it, so this may be extraneous?

File xml-apis.jar is the xerces equivalent of jaxp.jar. Neither is
needed when using java 1.4 or later as these classes are built-in.

> >  * browse the updated website (in the site subdirectory) and
> >    look for any errors.
> Assm link to "Javadoc API docs" will end up pointing to current
> release javadoc.  Also need to remove or change the date (June 1) for
> 1.7 release. A couple of contributors have non-obfuscated emal
> addresses in project.xml that will go on the site.  Are we sure they
> are OK with that?

The javadoc links are ok; when I deploy I will rename directories on as needed.

I'll try to remember to update the date. It's a shame it isn't
automatic. Anyway, a week or two's difference shouldn't matter.

Bradley and Wendy have had their addresses up on the existing site for
some time.

> One little nit.  What exactly is license-header.txt for?  It specifies
> a start date of 2001.  This should probably not be used for new files.

It's mainly used by checkstyle to ensure that all java files have the
right copyright/license header. Line 3 of the file is explicitly
ignored, though, so files can have different copyright dates. See file

Being able to use it as a template for future files is just a bonus, and
you are quite right that people will then have to edit the copyright
date as appropriate.

I've fixed tabs in the other files you pointed out in a separate email.

I hope to hear back from the end-user who actually requested a release
soon; that should cover testing the release in an actual app. Assuming
that's ok and no other problems appear I will then be posting a vote for
actual release.



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

View raw message