On 9/19/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *groan* *shuffle* > > a zombie commons project rises to stalk the earth again, hungry for votes... > > Seriously, it'll be two years next Saturday since 1.0 was released, and > after a fair bit of work on closing existing bugs and adding simple new > features, I'd like to put it to a vote. > > Artifacts: > http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC1/ > > Staged site: > http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC1/site/ > > Release notes: > http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt > > clirr: > http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC1/clirr.txt > > rat: > http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC1/rat.txt > > There is one breaking change to point out: the protected field > HtmlEmail.inlineImages was changed from a List to a Map. This was done > because the original implementation didn't work correctly. There's no reason > why this field can't be private, since the class isn't designed for > extension. I figured that changing the type and not the visibility would > give that one guy who did subclass the chance to find out and fix it. Aside > from this, all other changes are fixes or additions. >
Nice work! I agree with Oliver though that the backward compat isssue requires a major version bump and ideally deprecation before that. Any way it can be worked around? A few more observations. 1) I notice that the src distro includes a /lib directory with some jars that the README says are not needed by the maven build. Shouldn't these be removed from the distro? Both mvn and ant builds seem to work without this directory. This is a showstopper if the license is not compatible. 2) What is the difference between maven-build.xml and build.xml? Both seem to work. Maybe one should be removed? Could be I am missing something here. 3) The manifest has built-by attribute "ben". I don't know if if is possible to override the built-by using m2, but it would be good to make this "bspeakmon. " 4) Opinions vary on this, but at least some of us think that it is best to build the release binary jars using the lowest supported jdk - which in this case should be 1.4. Looks like the binary was built using 1.6. Sigs and hashes check fine. We need to make sure to update http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS to add your key prior to release. Do we just copy this from SVN? You should also publish your key to some keyservers and get it signed. Phil > [] +1 > [] +/-0 > [] -1 > > My +1 is nonbinding for this vote, so we need three okeydokeys from vested > PMC members. > > Vote will close Saturday at 22:00 PDT. > > Thanks, > --Ben > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
