Hi Niall, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the > tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll > leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to > give time for feedback. > > The distro is here: > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/ > > Release Notes: > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt > > Site: > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/ > > Maven Stuff: > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/maven/ > > Some Notes: > > * There is one error on the clirr report - which is a false positive > (a generic method that is erased) > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/clirr-report.html > * Links to the JavaDoc versions on the site don't work (they will when > its deployed to the right location) thanks for all the work you put into this release. I had not the time to look at the new stuff in detail, but looking at the release notes, I wonder about the version: 1/ requires now Java 5 instead of 1.3 2/ is binary compatible with 1.4 3/ does not remove deprecated stuff 4/ is using the same package name 5/ is using the old Maven groupId 6/ adds a lot new stuff 7/ deprecates some stuff 8/ contains bug fixes IMHO we started with 2.0 because we were not sure if topic 2/ and 3/ can be ensured for 1/ and it was not a primary goal. However, this turned out fine and 1/ has been never forcing a major version change in general. So, is there any other reason to call this release 2.0 instead of 1.5? Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
