On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 22:32 +0200, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 22:27 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> To save people reading through below, my summary is: > >> > >> <summary> > >> Some excellent proofreading here, and a number of doc/release-notes > >> issues have been found by Dennis, as well as a case where we could use > >> constants instead of inline strings, and one where we should technically > >> be using a param value instead of a constant in a diagnostic message > >> (though it doesn't matter in that case anyway). > >> > >> However I don't see anything here that I think is worth cancelling the > >> RC10 vote for. A few items would be good to put up on the wiki under > >> "1.1 release addendum". > > > > an interesting one, this > > > > the release process we use here in the commons (release candidates > > rather than blessing a concrete distribution) means that there are > > always changes between the final release candidate and the release > > distributed. the question is what changes are acceptable and which > > necessitate another VOTE. > > > > we already have changes to the documentation and some to the code > > formatting committed. more changes (as outlined by dennis) shouldn't > > really effect the result: either no changes above the minimum version > > changes are acceptable or cosmetic and documentation ones are. > > > > it feels like a long, long we've travelled. after all this effort, i > > think one final push is worth it. given the fact that the changes are > > cosmetic and documentation, i think i'll cut one more candidate tomorrow > > but propose a short length for the vote. > > +1 > > None of the changes that I have committed affect the actual running code > of JCL. The changes made are: > - Corrections and additions to JavaDoc > - Corrections to documentation (xdocs) > - Code formating regarding white space (transforming tabs into spaces)
yep: it's more of a procedural issue. if we hadn't been working on this release for so long i'd probably been happy just to tally the votes... i have some more troubleshooting documentation which is yet to be tidied up and committed. i'd be grateful if you could find the time to check careful any changes i make. > I deliberately did not check in the proposed *code* changes in > LogFactory and LogFactoryImpl. As Simon correctly stated they really > don't bring any added value. They are more design issues. yeh - i appreciate that :) > Also I have not committed the proposed changes/additions to the > RELEASE_NOTES.txt. If there will be another RC then these changes should > be committed. > - Upgrade recommendations for the api jar (Tomcat vs all others) > - The api jar still contains Jdk14Logger > - AvalonLogger no longer implements serializable please check my commits - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
