RE: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-21 Thread Gary Gregory
I notice that the code coverage report was generated use Cobertura version 1.6. How about migrating to the current version 1.8? Gary > -Original Message- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:41 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Sub

Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Henri Yandell
On 9/20/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Should we be using viewcvs.cgi still now we are on svn? Or is there a viewvc.cgi? Fixed for next rc. - Tasks xdoc needs Stringbuf removing. Fixed for next rc. - The release notes mentions changes from 2.0 to 2.1, which it probabl

Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Henri Yandell
On 9/20/06, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - the jar is getting a little porky, at nearly 250K. > > 3.0 and removing deprecations might help a little there. Should we plan on delivering whatever we delete, like the enum package, in a separate jar for backwards binary compatibility?

RE: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Gary Gregory
- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:37 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments > > On 9/20/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Should we

RE: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Gary Gregory
; Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:23 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments > > - Should we be using viewcvs.cgi still now we are on svn? Or is there a > viewvc.cgi? > > - Tasks xdoc needs Stringbuf removing. >

Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Henri Yandell
On 9/20/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Should we be using viewcvs.cgi still now we are on svn? Or is there a viewvc.cgi? - Tasks xdoc needs Stringbuf removing. - The release notes mentions changes from 2.0 to 2.1, which it probably shouldn't. - jar manifest doesn't include

Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Stephen Colebourne
- Should we be using viewcvs.cgi still now we are on svn? Or is there a viewvc.cgi? - Tasks xdoc needs Stringbuf removing. - The release notes mentions changes from 2.0 to 2.1, which it probably shouldn't. - jar manifest doesn't include the X-... attributes detailed in the release docs for

RE: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments

2006-09-20 Thread Gary Gregory
Our application builds and all tests pass with 2.2-rc1. So, that's +1. Gary > -Original Message- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:41 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments > >