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=770570&view=rev
Log:
us
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 0
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
ClassCastEx
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.
-jo
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 run
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 t
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 conti
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 result
