sebb wrote:
> Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to
> change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and roll
> the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for taking the
> time to give all of the feedback that you have already.
I think we should drop sandbox from trunk entirely; that will resolve
the issues.
I agree with you completely.
Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll rc1.
I'm not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm
not sure what all the commons parent pom is doing yet).
I'm not yet convinced about the Clirr errors.
I tried running the previous tests jar against the current code.
There were some errors, but these may be due to code fixes. I've not
had time to investigate fully.
But in any case, the description in changes.xml needs to explain why
the Clirr errors are not a concern.
IIRC, the errors that I saw were about new methods or fields which
should be fine for binary compatibility (sans the aforementioned Tar*
classes). Given what you said earlier and my personal understanding,
this should not affect binary compat.
I have it on my list to update the necessary docs with the "why" before rc1.
LMK if/when you decide for certain about the API additions and whether
or not they're OK. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
