On 30.12.2003 17:01:24 Henri Yandell wrote: > > Agreed. If no one has the itch, we should shelve it. > > I would just list it as: Not going for 1.0 and we wouldn't include it in > the 1.0 tag. It can stay in its current place in CVS I think. We got away > with this a lot in Lang, having packages that didn't deploy even though > they were in HEAD etc.
I like putting new stuff into a sandbox directory until it is ready. Leaving it where it is means that the person applying the CVS tag must be pretty careful. Just an observation, not a proposal. > Are there any methods in there that are worth pushing? Or just skip the > whole thing for 1.0 and when someone turns up with the itch we can hit > them with all the difficulties and as a group solve them? IMO we can skip the whole thing. But checking FilenameUtils and FileUtils I realize we don't have any methods in FileUtils that do extension handling (getExtension, removeExtension). The only problem I see is people who might use methods from FilenameUtils today. But that should motivate them to step in. :-) Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
