On 2013-10-13, Phil Steitz wrote: > I am sorry. I forgot one other thing to verify. The clirr report > complains about dropping a field. Is this spurious / not really an > issue?
Ah yes, I should have talked about that. It is a protected field in the Tar*Stream classes which should have never been protected but was for hisorical reasons. When the change was made a few month ago we concluded it would be extremely unlikely that subclasses of said streams existed that used it, in particular since the type of the protected field was a package private class (TarBuffer). The implementation has been changed considerably and the TarBuffer class has even been removed - so if this change blocks the release the only mitigation will be to revert the changes completely. I'm fully prepared to do that, if necessary. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
