Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections

[Michael A. Smith]

Henri Yandell wrote:

2.  In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
Specification-Version: 1.0
Implementation-Version: 2.0

Imp Version done.
Spec Version not done. Any suggestions on what it should be? 2.0? 2.1?
Following the format of Collections 1, I think it would be 1.0.

I think it should be 2.1. The API has changed since 2.0, so there's a new specification even though the changes were backwards compatible.

If someone reimplements the collections 2.1 API, and specify specification-version 2.0 and implementation-version 6643 (some random build number), how would a user know that the implementation contains the 2.1 classes (e.g. iterators)? Hence, I think the spec number should be changed when the API changes. If we release a 2.1.1 bug-fix-only release, then the spec would stay at 2.1 since the API specification doesn't change.

3.  In the .zip distributions (both source and binary), the text files
do not have windows line endings.  I'm not sure whether that's such a
big deal, but you'd think that windows users that open the LICENSE.txt
file in notepad will want to be able to read it.  Same goes for all the
source files and such.  Recommend running ant's FixCRLF task on all
.txt, .html, .xml, and .java files when the .zip distributions are created.

Need to test that to make sure it doesn't introduce ^Ms on non-Windows I
guess. Not done yet.

yeah, this one is a bit semi-controversial, even to myself. I'd drop my -1 even if this wasn't fixed.

[needs rechecking:

4.  Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist" does not
generate the exact same binary distribution as what are up on the
website.  For the most part, this is probably due to #1, but once that's
fixed, this should be done againt to make sure things are ok.   In
addition, the distributions that are generated from the "ant dist"
result in files with base name of commons-collections-2.0 instead of
commons-collections-2.1.  This is due to the component.version specified
as 2.0 in the build.xml instead of 2.1.

Note. I get files with 2.1, then rename them to 2.1_rc2 for the rc. Apart
from cvs tags which have to be different, I want all other things to say
2.1.

agreed. They just shouldn't be 2.0. :)

I don't think I'll have time to recheck the rc2 packaging until Sat evening, but if someone else can check for the issues I mentioned, that'd be great.

regards,
michael



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>