I'm -1 on this change as well. Lets back these out and try it again
correctly. This was my concern that large changes just before a release are
almost always a bad thing. Just because we decide to flip the source flag
over to 1.5 doesn't mean we have to convert every piece of code to 1.5 yet.
I'm vetoing (-1) this change and the one in 771294. Looking through this
commit, it seems apparent to me that unless you've verified all the
collection changes using something like Eclipse's Call Hierarchy tool
after letting Eclipse change all sorts of source code, we can't depend
on the
Right, I'll rollback this on 2.2.RC branch and foc on 2.2.1
2009/5/5 Brian Fox bri...@infinity.nu
I'm -1 on this change as well. Lets back these out and try it again
correctly. This was my concern that large changes just before a release are
almost always a bad thing. Just because we decide
Sory for the source formatting changes, I'm using the maven-codestyle.xml so
expected it to not disturb the source.
2009/5/5 John Casey jdca...@commonjava.org
I'm vetoing (-1) this change and the one in 771294. Looking through this
commit, it seems apparent to me that unless you've verified
On 2-May-09, at 1:58 PM, John Casey wrote:
The ITs all looked fine with this commit, so it looks like this
stuff won't cause too much grief...but hopefully the testing of the
RC will tell.
If it was decided that this should run in only in 1.5 and you don't
have to worry about a 1.4
Yeah, we're using the version '2.2.0' partially because JDK 1.5 is a
requirement for one of the regression fixes.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 2-May-09, at 1:58 PM, John Casey wrote:
The ITs all looked fine with this commit, so it looks like this stuff
won't cause too much grief...but hopefully
On 03/05/2009, at 6:58 AM, John Casey wrote:
The ITs all looked fine with this commit, so it looks like this
stuff won't cause too much grief...but hopefully the testing of the
RC will tell.
I've created a 2.2.0-RC branch for subsequent RCs and the final
release of 2.2.0, so we can
Do we prefer plugin developers to use List? and get ClassCastExceptions at
runtime or sue type-safe collections to help them create stronger code ?Anyway,
few plugins allready use Java5. Java 1.4 based one will not be broken as the
generics signature is only a compile-time check.
2009/5/1 Brian
What is the problem with this commit regarding the scope of what John is
trying to do wrt to 2.2?
I thought Maven 2.2 requiring Java 5 was about to use typed collections: then
every enhancement to use typed collections is in the scopen, no?
Is there something I'm missing?
FYI, I'm not a Java 5
In general, no. I just wanted to draw John's attention to the changes
since I know he was preparing to cut an RC. I am suspicious of all
changes when a release is drawing near.
On May 2, 2009, at 2:44 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
Do we prefer plugin developers to use List? and get
The ITs all looked fine with this commit, so it looks like this stuff
won't cause too much grief...but hopefully the testing of the RC will tell.
I've created a 2.2.0-RC branch for subsequent RCs and the final release
of 2.2.0, so we can continue converting the syntax on the 2.2.x branch.
I don't believe anyone actually agreed to this yet. Are you sure this
is not going to cause problems for users?
On 1-May-09, at 1:04 AM, nico...@apache.org wrote:
Author: nicolas
Date: Fri May 1 08:04:48 2009
New Revision: 770570
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=770570view=rev
Log:
I'm not sure if this is in scope of what John is trying to do wrt to 2.2.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't believe anyone actually agreed to this yet. Are you sure this
is not going to cause problems for users?
On 1-May-09, at 1:04 AM, nico...@apache.org wrote:
Author: nicolas
Date: Fri May 1
What exactly distinct having a List? that only contains Artifact and
internally cast to this type, and use ListArtifact as method signature ?
2009/5/1 Brian Fox bri...@infinity.nu
I'm not sure if this is in scope of what John is trying to do wrt to 2.2.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't believe
14 matches
Mail list logo
