On 12/2/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 for the plan, but with the following comment on the release plan > dependencies: > > The release plan is showing Commons Validator 1.1.4 - but the > website/build.xml has Validator 1.2.0. Also looking at the build.xml, the > dependency download also includes three Commons components not mentioned > on > the website or in the release plan (Codec 1.2, Collections 3.0 and > FileUpload 1.0).
The release plan is out of date in this regard ... we upgraded the validator dependency in the code, but I forgot to update the release plan. The actual build uses 1.2. Wendy's comments on the other three components are accurate, but they should be called out somewhere in the release plan template (since they are actually included in the example app). Need to figure out a strategy for that. One other thing about the actual build - I was wondering why just one > "all-in-one" build rather than the usual source/binary distros? Call it a social experiment :-). I'm continually amazed at how many people treat open source projects as a binary distribution, and never bother to go get the source. Several commons packages, as well as Spring, do it this way ... I want to see if it encourages people to actually look. (In addition, it makes life much easier when you're trying to use a debugger to have the source code for framework classes available.) Niall Craig
