I can see one reason for not deprecating stuff in a point release. If
someone is really concerned about deprecation warnings, I would imagine
that they could set up their build system to fail if there are
deprecation warnings. A point release should be a drop in replacement.
So if you add deprecations to a point release it could, in this
scenario, possibly fail someone's build if they upgrade commons-io from
1.3.1 to 1.3.2.
Henri Yandell wrote:
Sorry for being slow on this one.
I'm with Jochen and Joerg in not getting why deprecation would
indicate a minor release and not be allowed in a bugfix release. Sure
it sucks that a new class is immediately being deprecated, but better
to get such things out there now rather than waiting.
Hen
On 6/20/07, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I requested one of two remedies:
a) Release as 1.3.2, but undeprecate the static utility class
FileCleaner methods (they would be deprecated in 1.4). The static
methods can have comments added in 1.3.2 indicating the preferred
alternative.
b) Release as 1.4.
I also have no recollection of a release with an unresolved -1. I
would strongly prefer one of the two remedies to be applied.
I also agree that we desperately need this to be properly agreed and
documented.
Stephen
----- Original Message ----
From: Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 5:42:32 AM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
1.4instead of
1.3.2, does that fully answer the concern?
On 6/19/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 6/19/07, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe you're right.
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html#decisions/items/plan
says
> > "...Majority
> > approval is required before the public release can be made."
> >
> >
>
> Yes, that is the policy, but I have never seen us move forward with a
> release with an unresolved -1 in commons. Could be this has happened,
> but not in the last 4 or so years.
>
> It is up to the RM, but with a -1 from a major contributor to the code
> base, I would personally not push out the release. FWIW, as mentioned
> on other threads, I agree with Stephen on the version number issue.
>
> Phil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
