+1, a 1.0.1 now makes sense.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Lang] Release 1.1? [wasRe: [Lang] Please f
Okay, with the Range code suggestions today and Robert getting into
MethodUtils I think there's still a lot of good development work ongoing
and that a 1.0.1 should be done.
This would include the following bugfixes:
14566 - NumberRange.getMaximum
13568 - Enum allows enums with same name
13527 -
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@;generationjava.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Lang] Release 1.1? [wasRe: [Lang] Please fix this]
>
>
>
>
> On Fri,
49 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Lang] Release 1.1? [wasRe: [Lang] Please fix this]
>
>
>
> They seem to be the choices.
>
> We have:
>
> 1)
> 1.0.1 release asap. This includes the NumericRange bugfix and
> any other bugfixes that ca
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
> If we'd spotted the maximum() bug before release, it would have stopped the
> release. Fixing showstopper bugs is good cause for a bug fix release. And
> it's not that hard:
>
> cvs tag -b -r LANG_1_0 LANG_1_0_BRANCH lang
Ah. I've always branched HEAD,
StringUtils is binary incompatible with the 1.0 version of StringUtils, so it
certainly isn't 1.0.1.
Plus, I've never liked mixing bugfix releases in with new functionality, which
always imply new bugs.
If we'd spotted the maximum() bug before release, it would have stopped the
release. Fixi
