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 (athena.apache.org: domain of flamefew@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <-4574364223471191974@unknownmsgid>
References: <BANLkTi=j5GaApOjwnhRnT6uO7F2Uoag_=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<iv557k$jsb$2@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAPVuaYta_OTju9kaGwh_VN3cK+8iEze4Pfp8ALQdyNmkyJYTuA@mail.gmail.com>
	<3124378600328810667@unknownmsgid>
	<20704685.2118.1310366261382.JavaMail.mobile-sync@ynni1>
	<-4574364223471191974@unknownmsgid>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:14:18 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAPVuaYveOgpLuQX5mUbiKVyJpGxPf_OB3yzyWioNLs3UYDa7wA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lang] Time for RC3?
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 Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:37, "J=F6rg Schaible" <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com>=
 wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:05, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, J=F6rg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de=
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Hen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we're ready for another release candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know of any remaining items? JIRA is clean, and I don't
>>>>>> see anything in the email threads that implies more work needs to be
>>>>>> done.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have two failing unit tests with Java 7. At least one is due to
>>>>> change in behavior of the Java runtime:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/ FastDateFormatTest.testFormat
>>>>> 2/ UnicodeEscaperTest.testUPlus (change in Java 7)
>>>>
>>>> Do you think either will require an API change?
>>
>> I have no really looked into FastDate, but in the UnicodeEscaper we
>> explicitly rely on the fact the the JDK fails for this UPlus notation (t=
his
>> is at least how I read the code) i.e. according our Javadoc it should fa=
il
>> nevertheless. It is questionable now to adjust Javadoc, I'd rather opt f=
or
>> JDK-independent behavior.
>>
>>>> ie) Can we leave them for 3.0.1?
>>>
>>> I think we can postpone java 7 alpha worries for later. It feels like
>>> java 7 is still moving target.
>>
>> With Java 7 released this month I'd better be prepared now.
>
> I did not realize it was just around the corner! Wow.

And 2013 if you're on OS X :)

Hen

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