commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Date Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:05:58 GMT
Sorry for being slow on this one.

I'm with Jochen and Joerg in not getting why deprecation would
indicate a minor release and not be allowed in a bugfix release. Sure
it sucks that a new class is immediately being deprecated, but better
to get such things out there now rather than waiting.

Hen

On 6/20/07, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> I requested one of two remedies:
>
> a) Release as 1.3.2, but undeprecate the static utility class FileCleaner methods (they
would be deprecated in 1.4). The static methods can have comments added in 1.3.2 indicating
the preferred alternative.
>
> b) Release as 1.4.
>
> I also have no recollection of a release with an unresolved -1. I would strongly prefer
one of the two remedies to be applied.
>
> I also agree that we desperately need this to be properly agreed and documented.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ben Speakmon <bspeakmon@apache.org>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 5:42:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
>
> Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
> 1.4instead of
> 1.3.2, does that fully answer the concern?
>
> On 6/19/07, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/19/07, Dion Gillard <dion@trongus.com> wrote:
> > > I believe you're right.
> > >
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html#decisions/items/plan says
> > > "...Majority
> > > approval is required before the public release can be made."
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is the policy, but I have never seen us move forward with a
> > release with an unresolved -1 in commons.  Could be this has happened,
> > but not in the last 4 or so years.
> >
> > It is up to the RM, but with a -1 from a major contributor to the code
> > base, I would personally not push out the release.  FWIW, as mentioned
> > on other threads, I agree with Stephen on the version number issue.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
View raw message