On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Rodney Waldhoff wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > I think this proposal would be more accurately considered a product change > > (it removes public classes from a released component and adds a new > > dependency to a released component, arguably it changes the scope of two > > released components) and hence would require [lazy] consensus approval. > > I.e., this is a veto-able action. > > I may be missing something but Stephen's proposal is to deprecate and > not remove public classes from collections.
Clearly the intention behind deprecating a method or class is to remove it. > I don't see the issue in adding a dependency on the next release of > collections. I haven't (yet) voted on this proposal. I'm not saying that I do see an issue with adding a dependency to collections. I'm not saying that I do see an issue with deprecating and removing certain classes in collections. I'm saying that the proposed changes ((i) deprecating (with the intention of removing) released classes, (ii) adding a new compile-time and run-time dependency to a released component, (iii) changing the originally proposed scope of lang, (iv) reducing the scope of the released collections) constitute a product change which requires lazy consensus approval. It doesn't necessarily require a [VOTE] or any formal +1s, but a veto (backed by legitimate reasons) is binding (the way I read the ASF/Jakarta/Jakarta-Commons guidelines and this proposal at least). > Emmanuel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
