On 18/02/2014 19:28, sebb wrote: > On 18 February 2014 18:51, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 18/02/2014 18:24, sebb wrote: >>> On 17 February 2014 20:42, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> 2.2 fixes a few bugs and adds a new testOnCreate() feature that is >>>> required by DBCP 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Pool 2.2 RC1 is available for review here: >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/ (r4424) >>> >>> Sigs and hashes OK. >>> Source archive agrees with SVN tag apart from as noted below >>> >>>> Maven artifacts are here: >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1008 >>>> >>>> Details of changes since 2.1 are in the release notes and changelog: >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/RELEASE-NOTES.txt >>>> http://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/pool-2.2-RC1-site/changes-report.html >>>> >>>> The tag is here: >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/tags/POOL_2_2_RC1/ >>>> (r 1569090) >>> >>> Some shell scripts and download_pool.cgi have SVN eol=native. >>> Any objections if I change these to LF in trunk? >> >> Yes. What is the point? eol=native means they are easier to work with. > > The EOL will be incorrect in the source archive unless the archive is > created on a system with EOL=LF > Or unless some other means of fixing the EOL is applied, e.g. updating > the assembly descriptor.
That looks like the better option as it fixes all the other files as well. >>> However, 3 source files in SVN doc/ folder are missing from the source >>> release. >>> I don't think that should be the case. >> >> Agreed. Need to figure out how to get those included. > > Just update the assembly descriptor(s). Scratch that. As per Phil's response that is intentional. I'll add a comment to those files. >>> The Clirr report shows two errors. >>> These are due to updating the interfaces >>> GenericKeyedObjectPoolMXBean >>> and >>> GenericObjectPoolMXBean >>> >>> The Javadoc for these interfaces states that they are subject to >>> change between major releases. >>> However this is a minor release. >>> >>> The Clirr errors need to be explained in the Release Notes. >>> Do they have an impact on user code? >>> If not, why not? >> >> No, they don't. We went through this for the 2.1 release. See the >> archives for why this is OK. > > Please can the details be added to the Release Notes? > It's not exactly easy for the casual reader to find the information > from the archives. I'll look at improving the wording in the Javadoc and adding something to the release notes. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
