Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of flamefew@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=jPv2JFQP8JTDoyAhMxCghwmjVP4sl4UjzlKWL9YX7Bu1K8+r8w0SRKeelQM1IMQ2ju
         5K1QJlosAYweqz2WdEJ5xRiNt0q3XvzmNBKdC4Pqc2yRMQcQLJNgBHOHixHSd8pJsxE0
         eFremqORgHNhfFFmV2Yeae3t6OCZXfvyQ14IQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilhB7SWblllKMkQ0seXNmsWZuh19xkE_5TfLIy5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikl5EXFHjpAUx7thwKf7qVtY-h_03YoDUn77vdf@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTilhB7SWblllKMkQ0seXNmsWZuh19xkE_5TfLIy5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:23:43 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinFDk84oeV1ZLFITSVAuroeJjuic4it--6y8sV9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lang] 3.0-beta? [Was: When is next release of commons-lang
	planned?]
From: Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/06/2010, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here are example tarballs, jar and a site for a 3.0 beta:
>>
>> =A0http://people.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-3.0-beta/
>
> Is this basically the same code as in commons-lang-trunk?

Yes - exactly the same.

>> =A0The site isn't intended to be ready - that can be done later. What it
>> =A0does right now is provide the relevant 3.0 reports.
>>
>> =A0What I'd like to know right now is if it looks good and whether I
>> =A0should go ahead and tag 3.0-beta and do a real release build. I think
>> =A0we're ready to build a beta. I don't expect a lot of API change after
>> =A0this, and I don't know of any bugs in 3.0 that weren't in 2.x.
>>
>> =A0So not a release vote, but looking for consensus from anyone (users,
>> =A0committers, pmc) that it's time to put a beta stake in the ground.
>
> In general I agree.
>
> However, I think it is essential to document the intended class thread-sa=
fety.
>
> For example, the mutable package is not intended to be thread-safe
> whereas concurrent is presumably intended to be.

If you want to do that, then I can see delaying for a defined time. If
it's just something you think someone else should do, I know it isn't
my priority and not something I'd see as a release blocker for either
a beta or for 3.0 itself.

> The package.html files also need some work.

They're pretty tiny, so shouldn't be much [unless you have visions of
writing a lot in there].

Hen

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