Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of flamefew@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=cf26S7qL9OX+KKbzqn05O3BW/iWvWe5yajGLqT6tXqJ/SjeCHoG2qr0mTS94oWySvMpHK59RJuPSW9BfhpbZtQy/hYdeYD+FKXgEAJST/u2iJuMDX7BnAnEDNpUkxWR+CUvMAA1a5bWU/eXNUk+DTgmn0TQRJ3x8ifGVw5Rb154=
Message-ID: <31cc37360604161004o77b37b83j74d5ea078e891aaa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:04:22 -0700
From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [lang] next version etc
In-Reply-To: <19B78354A4AA3E4287384F3D30933F88B37F16@MAIL1.seagull.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <19B78354A4AA3E4287384F3D30933F88B37F16@MAIL1.seagull.nl>

On 4/15/06, Gary Gregory <ggregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:flamefew@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 6:04 PM
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: [lang] next version etc
> >
> > I want to do something fun...so how about a Lang release.....
> >
> > First up;  2.2 or 3.0?  It would be nice to have one without enum and
> > the other deprecated bits.
>
> IMO: 2.2, then 3.0 which removes 'enum' and anything that Java 5/6
> complains about. Or... The ticket list below is long and diverse in
> scope and time needed. A possible "release early, release often" track
> could be:
> - Release 2.2 "now", with only critical fixes. Time frame:
> "now"=3D"weeks".
> - Release 2.3: implement "easy" fixes and apply no-brainer patches. Time
> frame: +1 month.
> - Release 2.4: implement trickier new features that require discussion
> and time to implement. Time frame: "Months".

I think it's worthwhile to group the issues into the separations
you've suggested, then we can discuss release points. Size of groups
would determine whether the above makes sense.

My immediate feel is that it's too many releases - good for Lang but
bad for the other Commons components if we suck up 4 or 5 of our
interest level in this way.

> - Release 3.0:
>   - discuss breaking the API by removing deprecated methods?

There needs to be discussion? :) General rule is that we drop
deprecateds at the next major.

>   - discuss changing the base JRE requirement?

Any reasons jumping to mind to change?

>   - discuss deprecating any date/time code that can be replaced with
> Joda-Time.

This should be done in 2.2/ASAP.  I'm not sure we have that much that
should be deprecated - we just need to be getting good at drawing the
line of what is fine to implement and what is too much.

>   - builds/works on Java 5?
>   - builds/works on Java 6?

+1 to both. Trying to build commons components under Harmony is on my
todo list too.

Hen

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