commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [collections] beta release - howto
Date Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:02:44 GMT
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
> guess an alpha release would be safer.
> I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
> changes to an alpha2 release, as I will need a bit more time to work on the
> Trie interface and maybe add a fluent API for iterators (see
> COLLECTIONS-442).
>
>
I think it would be useful to ensure that all generics warnings are fixed -
including test code - before any release.
That's one way of ensuring that the API is reasonable - users should not
have to ignore generics warnings.

Also the non-private mutable fields should have getters.
Ideally no setters, as they make thorough testing much harder, though
that's not always possible.

I'm willing to convert the fields to private if that would suit you
(COLLECTIONS-455)

I may also have time to fix some generics warnings in the test code.

Thomas
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 2013 18:27, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is less attention paid to the API for an alpha/beta?
> > >
> > >
> > If the idea is to be able to change the API (possibly breaking
> > compatibility) then I don't think a Beta release is appropriate.
> >
> > That would be for an Alpha release - and we would have to make very clear
> > that a subquent release might break compatibility.
> > I think that's about the only situation where Commons might release a
> > binary-incompatible jar without changing Maven coords or package name.
> >
> > I think a Beta release is more suitable for indicating that there may be
> > quite a few bugs in the code, so users should only upgrade if they are
> > prepared for this.
> >
> > In any case any release needs to go through the usual release vote
> process.
> >
> > Hen
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> > > jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is nothing special. Even with "alpha", or "beta" as part of the
> > > > version number, it is technically an ASF release, and therefore
> subject
> > > to
> > > > the full blown process and rules.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Thomas Neidhart
> > > > <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have seen that the log4j team prepared a new beta for v2.
> > > > >
> > > > > As collections 4 is very close to be ready, I'd like to know more
> > about
> > > > > the process of beta releases, as I am planning to do the same for
> > > > > collections 4.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can somebody enlighten me a bit?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "That's what prayers are ... it's frightened people trying to make
> > > friends
> > > > with the bully!"
> > > >
> > > > Terry Pratchett. The Last Hero
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message