commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:06:44 GMT
Niall, if the rules allow a major version bump, then you are free to
do it. However, the major version bump is misleading to me and I
wouldn't choose it if I was RM.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Gary Gregory
<GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Niall,
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
>>>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to
>>>> give time for feedback.
>>>>
>>>> The distro is here:
>>>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/
>>>>
>>>> Release Notes:
>>>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>>
>>>> Site:
>>>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/
>>>>
>>>> Maven Stuff:
>>>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/maven/
>>>>
>>>> Some Notes:
>>>>
>>>> * There is one error on the clirr report - which is a false positive
>>>> (a generic method that is erased)
>>>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/clirr-report.html
>>>> * Links to the JavaDoc versions on the site don't work (they will when
>>>> its deployed to the right location)
>>>
>>> thanks for all the work you put into this release. I had not the time to
>>> look at the new stuff in detail, but looking at the release notes, I wonder
>>> about the version:
>>>
>>> 1/ requires now Java 5 instead of 1.3
>>> 2/ is binary compatible with 1.4
>>> 3/ does not remove deprecated stuff
>>> 4/ is using the same package name
>>> 5/ is using the old Maven groupId
>>> 6/ adds a lot new stuff
>>> 7/ deprecates some stuff
>>> 8/ contains bug fixes
>>>
>>> IMHO we started with 2.0 because we were not sure if topic 2/ and 3/ can be
>>> ensured for 1/ and it was not a primary goal. However, this turned out fine
>>> and 1/ has been never forcing a major version change in general. So, is
>>> there any other reason to call this release 2.0 instead of 1.5?
>>
>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>> starting point:
>>
>>    http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>>
>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of
>> that debate ended up about maven groupIds:
>>
>>    http://markmail.org/message/flsmdalzs6tjv3va
>>
>> It is arbitrary though - my preference is for 2.0 since it makes it
>> easy to remember which releases were for JDK 1.3 and which for JDK
>> 1.5. Also it seems like moving to JDK 1.5 warrants more of a version
>> change than +0.1
>>
> +1, a major jre req change warrants a +1.0 to the version.
>
> Gary
>
>> Niall
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jörg
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message