Thanks to everyone's feedback so far. Sorry, I was away over the weekend, couldn't reply sooner. Consolidating couple of replies in one:
On 9/3/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks good to me. +1 assuming build has been tested on 1.2, which is what the jar manifest specifies.
<snip/> The necessary compiler source/target settings are set at 1.2, however we discussed [1] that a 1.3 build would be acceptable before we went down this route. In any case, if anyone has 1.2 lying around (I don't) and wants to do any testing, we can extend this vote for another couple of days. Please let me know. [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=115500076427917&w=2
One small nit, which you could do without another RC, IMO, or ignore: The checkstyle report is not clean. One real javadoc error is flagged, some missing javadoc, missing package javadoc for a couple of packages, and some bogus complaints. I would recommend either fixing all of the errors, modifying checkstyle.xml, or dropping the report from the doc included in the distribution. Phil
<snap/> On 9/4/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul, I'll start looking at the checkstyle config and issues if you're happy with that?
<snip/> Phil is correct in pointing out that they be fixed, but IMO, which side of 1.1 that happens on is secondary -- as long as it happens. Doing it later gives us a clean process now (ideally, no mods between voting and a release, and though we have practical considerations, not sure we should exercise those in this case). Ofcourse, if I'm the only one who thinks that way, please go ahead ;-) -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
