Inline: > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 23:11 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > > Gary Gregory wrote: > > Ah, well, in that sprit, then comments on > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22719 would be > appreciated > > but I do not expect this to go in 2.0 unless other folks like/need it. > > Looks useful to me. I would go ahead and add it. Here are a couple of > small comments: > > 1. Yes, the name sucks, but nothing nice jumps out at me. Of the > alternatives that you have listed, I like "indexOfOccurrence" the best. > Another one to consider might be "ordinalIndexOf".
b/w the 2, I like indexOfOccurrence better but let's see what other folks like. > > 2. Make sure to change the method names in the javadoc examples to match > the chosen name. Also, the last two examples should probably be > replaced by one using a * for the integer argument. I am not fond of that one since I would need to put a "x" or "i" or something that is not the real answer to the example and since the point of the method is to pass in a count, an example for both 1 and 2 is nice. I could add another entry with * and "i" I guess. gg > > Phil > > > > > Gary > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 20:24 > >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > >> > >>Gary Gregory wrote: > >> > >>>I'll take the blame for causing any confusion on this one since I had > >>>committed these Javadoc changes "during" the vote, which was made more > >>>difficult due to the extremely long email delays caused by the current > >> > >>batch > >> > >>>of viruses going 'round. > >>> > >>>My thought was that we were indeed voting on the build based on tagged > >>>sources and that any new commits would be in a post >2.0 release (even > >>>though, these changes being Javadoc changes are "harmless" and > >> > >>beneficial to > >> > >>>the release IMHO ;-) > >>> > >>>If we want to implement a code freeze in our environment on top of > using > >>>tags, we could do that. I guess we'd have to vote on it too :-) > >> > >>Sorry if I misunderstood things. I thought we were still adding things > >>to the release. I see no reason to freeze code if we have a tagged > >>release. I am +1 for releasing the code prior to the javadoc changes > >>that occurred during the vote or to adding them and retagging. If that > >>requires a new vote, then I am OK with that as well. > >> > >>In any case, we should not have to stop everything as we wait for the > >>release to go. I would also very much like to see 2.0 get out the door. > >> > >>Phil > >> > >> > >>>Gary > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 00:00 > >>>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >>>>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Well, if there is a question about policy/process, why not just > freeze > >>>> > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>code and restart the vote? > >>>> > >>>>By tagging the CVS, he effectively has frozen the code for the > Release. > >>> > >>I > >> > >>>>was simply curious about the policy because, as I said, other projects > >>> > >>are > >> > >>>>stricter. For example the HTTPd team has different rules > >>>>(http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html). > >>>> > >>>>A Release Manager makes a release build, and it is automatically an > >>> > >>alpha. > >> > >>>>It becomes a beta release when at least three Committers have voted > beta > >>>>status, and there are more +1 than -1. It becomes a GA release when > at > >>>>least three Committers vote for GA (stable) status, and there are more > >>> > >>+1 > >> > >>>>than -1. Notice that -1 is not a veto. Notice, also, that the > package > >>>>itself may go through multiple status changes, but no packaging > changes. > >>>>The only allowable change is renaming the file to reflect the change > in > >>>>status; exceptions can be made if a change in the contents of the > >>> > >>tarball > >> > >>>>(e.g., someone forgot to add the LICENSE file). Otherwise, if a > change > >>> > >>in > >> > >>>>the CVS needs to be incorporated, it becomes a new release (with a new > >>>>vote). > >>>> > >>>>Other projects, such as Avalon, also roll jars and then vote on them > as > >>> > >>a > >> > >>>>Release. So I was just asking to understand what is established as > >>> > >>policy > >> > >>>>here. I wasn't challenging Henri's release. > >>>> > >>>> --- Noel > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
