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 jak-commons-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender)
To: dev@commons.apache.org
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cmc=?= Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Followup-To: gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:18:55 +0200
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <i8h7t0$kts$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <AANLkTikwyGbnkZBm-j9nT9B11pFZDD+MnfuHLvtRU0h6@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.5

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?

Cheers,
Jörg


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