[reflect] is intended to take the current stalled [lang.reflect] code and make it a separate project. This would include reflection (with method caching) and maybe C# style features.
Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "__matthewHawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What's the status of the sandbox component [clazz]? I believed this to > be a project including reflection utilities, but I might be mistaken. > Is this a different project than what you're suggesting in [reflect]? > > As far as [io] is concerned, I'm hoping to submit a patch or two this > week, mostly focusing on improving the test coverage and simplifying the > api. Since Jeremias is on vacation for 2 weeks or so, if any committers > would keep their ears to the ground and take a look at my patches I > would appreciate it. > > > > > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > >Well, we want a release that works, so if that means waiting then thats how > >it goes. Don't want to miss the boat on any books or articles or other stuff > >though. > > > >I'm marshalling [collections] hoping for a release soon. Perhaps if [lang] > >committers want something to do, the reflect code could be broken out into a > >sandbox [reflect]? Or the [lang] sandbox could be used. Or there could be a > >focus on [io]. > > > >I don't want to wait too long though, as [lang] feels like it might have the > >energy to get a 2.1 in a couple of months to fill in any 2.0 gaps. Also, I > >want to use [lang] at work! > > > >Stephen > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>In addition to the question of us playing it a bit more by the rules, the > >>Jakarta website is in a bit of a transition for a week or so. I'd rather > >>not do any deploys until the move from daedelus to minotaur is complete, > >>so am suggesting we back off until then. This sound doable? > >> > >>Hen > >> > >>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, 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 :-) > >>> > >>>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] > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
