commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Proxy 1.0
Date Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:16:01 GMT
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
> release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
>
> 1.  Source Incompatible w/1.3 - Changed the source/target to 1.4 in
> proxy's pom file
>
> 2.  Javadoc Links - The new Javadocs will have links to JDK, XML-RPC,
> Javassist, AOP Alliance, and the "concurrent" stuff from Doug Lea's
> library.
>
> 3.  Digests/Signatures - Release candidate 2 distributions will have
> associated digest and signature files.
>
> 4.  Notice file copyright year range doesn't match the "inceptionYear"
> property in the pom file - I change the Notice file to match.
>
> 5.  Manifest file sloppiness: The felix plugin is causing this.
>
> So, am I ready for an rc2 for you guys?
>

It would be useful to document the minimum Java version on the
web-site main page.

Some Commons projects have developer pages; might be worth considering
this for a future release, if not now.

> On 2/19/08, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > On 2/19/08, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's written to be 1.3 compliant.
> > >
> > > It appears to be so if one uses Maven, however I just tried it with
> > > Eclipse, and there are some classes which are not compatible with 1.3.
> > >
> > > RuntimeException does not have RuntimeException([String,]Throwable)
> > > constructors, nor  do Exception.getCause() String.matche(String) exist
> > > in 1.3.
> >
> > Okay, so how about we say it's 1.4 compliant?  It's a brand new
> > library, so there really are no existing users.  The ones I have are
> > already using it based on what's in SVN, so they're probably okay with
> > the 1.4edness (it's a word, I promise).  Should I update the POM to
> > override what we have in the parent?  This brings up an interesting
> > question, though.  Why isn't this flagged?  I said it's supposed to be
> > 1.3 compliant to maven.  Shouldn't the maven build fail if I've got
> > stuff in there that's not 1.3 compliant?
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message