commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Murphy, Thomas H. (Newport News)" <>
Subject RE: httpclient md5 and asc files
Date Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:49:00 GMT

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, especially on 3.0.  However
. . .

Quibble 1:
It seems odd to make would-be users choose between an "unverifiable"
production version (2.0) and a "verifiable" alpha version (3.0).

Quibble 2:
How long would it take to post an md5 hash, a signed 2.0.1--with or without
minor bug fixes--and accompanying .asc file?

Quibble 3:
No one has to upgrade if he/she doesn't want to.

I'll try to drop the matter for now so as not to clutter mailboxes with this
seemingly trivial request.  Plus, I'm sure you all have bigger fish to fry
(e.g., 3.0).


-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:25 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: RE: httpclient md5 and asc files


HttpClient 2.0 tuned out to be quite robust. We had only four bug fixes
the 2.0 final release, none of which can be considered serious. Basically
at this point I personally see no reason to release as there are no
reasons to upgrade (unless bitten by one of those minor bugs). As far as
we are concerned HttpClient 2.0 is a dead-end. We would like see people
upgrading straight to 3.0 which brings several significant enhancements
to 2.0. 

As to 2.0.1 release, it will happen as soon as there's at least one more
or less serious bug to be fixed in the 2.0 branch, or to coincide with the
first 3.0 BETA expected around late August - September timeframe.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message