Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:38 PM To: Gary Gregory Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5) I think I found the problem. I need to do some more investigation, but it looks like an issue with the version of the maven javadoc

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

Hi Steven All: Any progress/ideas on the Javadoc problem? Thanks, Gary From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:16 AM To: Gary Gregory Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new

Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

-- *From:* Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:16 AM *To:* Gary Gregory *Cc:* Jakarta Commons Developers List *Subject:* Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5) Gary, Offhand I haven't a clue. I'll have to poke around and see if I can figure

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

1.6.2, Maven 1.0.2, Java 1.4.2_08 on Windows XP SP2. Gary From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:26 AM To: Gary Gregory Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5

Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:16 AM *To:* Gary Gregory *Cc:* Jakarta Commons Developers List *Subject:* Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5) Gary, Offhand I haven't a clue. I'll have to poke around and see if I can figure it out. The docs at http

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:38 PM To: Gary Gregory Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5) I think I found the problem. I need to do some more investigation, but it looks like an issue with the version

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

Steven: When I look at the Javadocs here: http://people.apache.org/~stevencaswell/commons-lang-2.1/docs/apidocs/in dex.html None of the comments from the package.html files show up in the package descriptions in the table in the frame:

Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

Gary, Offhand I haven't a clue. I'll have to poke around and see if I can figure it out. The docs at http://people.apache.org/~stevencaswell/commons-lang-2.1/docs/apidocs/ came from maven site:generate with Maven 1.0.2, so I'm a bit confused as to why you get a different result. A couple of

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

I am on Win XP SP2 with Java 1.4.2_07. Gary From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:16 AM To: Gary Gregory Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5) Gary

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

10, 2005 11:16 AM To: Gary Gregory Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5) Gary, Offhand I haven't a clue. I'll have to poke around and see if I can figure it out. The docs at http://people.apache.org/~stevencaswell/commons-lang-2.1/docs

Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

The method in question is deprecated. I don't know a lot about how JDiff works, could it be marking it as removed because it is deprecaed? On 5/6/05, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still seeing a Removed method in JDiff. ReflectionToStringBuilder.toString(Object, ToStringStyle,

Re: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

Still seeing a Removed method in JDiff. ReflectionToStringBuilder.toString(Object, ToStringStyle, boolean, Class). Not noticed by Clirr though. Clirr didn't notice the MILLI and enum deprecations, but it did notice ReflectionToStringBuilder deprecations that we don't list in the release notes.

RE: [lang] VOTE 2.1 release (new vote based on RC5)

Curious, have all the methods flagged as added in: http://people.apache.org/~stevencaswell/commons-lang-2.1/clirr-2.0-to-2. 1.txt been check for @since 2.1 in the Javadocs? Gary -Original Message- From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:59 PM To: