On 12 January 2011 12:18, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I will test the release in the next couple of days, but I have one >> comment on the release notes. Not enough for a -1 by itself, worth >> talking about if you roll another RC. >> >> I like the format and content of the release notes. I don't much like >> the heading "TASKS IN 2.6" over the list of resolved issues classified >> as "update" in changes.xml, though. > > I was trying to separate out changes that didn't actually affect the > code from the actual software bug fixes/enhancments. I take your point > though and I will fix it in the branch so that if a new RC is > required, then it will be fixed.
Perhaps call them "Non-functional changes" ? >> The text descriptions are taken >> from the issue descriptions and refer to the enhancement request, >> e.g., "Javadoc is incorrect for lastIndexOf() method" Labeling these >> as "tasks" leaves open the interpretation that these are known, >> unresolved issues. I think it is better to either just lump them with >> the "adds" or use labels like "New Features" (for the adds) and >> "Enhancements" or "Updates" for the "updates." > > I look at re-doing the changes.xml - since the site isn't part of the > release and I will be copying the new 2.6 elements over to the trunk's > changes.xml if/when the 2.6 release goes out. > > Niall > >> Phil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
