Not a problem though. Anyone who has that setup will definitely put in the effort to find out why it's deprecated and adjust their code.
Hen On 6/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
