On 9 December 2011 14:19, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all guys,I'm writing to call for a vote to release apache > commons-digester-3.2 based on RC1. > Please take in consideration that: * broken 3.2 links will be fixed > once the site will be deployed; * there is a Clirr violation, but 1) > target class is used for internal use only - there is no way users can > reuse it; 2) arguments type are still assignable, so I suspect it is > a false positive.
It's not a false positive, since previously one could pass a Class; now one has to pass AnnotatedElement. If you are sure it cannot be used by 3rd party code then that is OK, but it should ideally be mentioned in the release notes or at least on the web-site. An alternative solution would be to add back the old method sig, and deprecate it. There are quite a lot of Eclipse warnings that classes should implement hashCode() when they override equals(). These are not blockers, but should be fixed for the next release. Ditto Javadoc errors, and unthrown Exceptions (removing is binary compatible, but not source compatible). [Fixed in SVN] > The vote will stay open for at least 72 hours and closes approximately > on Monday 12th, at 2:20pm CET. > Many thanks in advance for reviewing, have a nice day!All the best,-Simo > Release notes: > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/digester/3.2/RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt > Tag: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/tags/DIGESTER3_3_2_RC1/ Some files have @version $Date$ in them, which causes timezone comparison differences. Not a blocker, but please fix before re-release. > Site: > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/digester/3.2/RC1/site/ > Binaries: > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/digester/3.2/RC1/binaries/ > Maven Artifacts (staged on Nexus) > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-304/org/apache/commons/commons-digester3/3.2/ > [ ] +1 release it > [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care > [X] -1 no, do not release it because... (please explain why) The NOTICE file mentions http://asm.ow2.org/ but the LICENSE file does not include its LICENSE. Ideally the LICENSE file should also state that AL 2.0 applies to CGLIB. Otherwise the RC looks OK. > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
