> On Jul 12, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My initial impression is that creating a script that edits sources
> correctly will take longer to write than editing the head of master to
> remove some of the generics. Recall that the code has other generics.
>
> I am guessing that a manual edit is probably a half day to a full day of
> work, I'm not sure how much editing the tests would need.
>
> My gut feel is that it is safer to take the head of master, create a 2.x.y
> branch and edit that, and switch master to 3.0.0. This pretty much
> guarantees that neither branch will miss any fix.
Thanks, Gary. I will take that approach.
Phil
>
> Gary
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 14:29 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the code in master is close to releasable modulo the breaking
>> change that we have agreed should move to 3.x. The clean way to proceed on
>> the 2.x branch would be to go back to the commit that introduced the new
>> exception type parameter, cut the branch from there and then port all of
>> the subsequent changes. That would be a lot of manual work to do
>> individually, referencing each commit. Do we think that this is necessary?
>>
>> I see two alternatives. One is to cut the 2.x branch from master and write
>> a script to make the changes to remove the type parameters, then do one
>> commit to revert that change. Second is to do basically the same thing,
>> only creating the branch from the prior commit, then one big commit to both
>> port subsequent changes and get rid of the type parameters.
>>
>> I am OK if people think we need to go back to the breaking commit and
>> individually port commits from there. It will just take a little longer.
>> I am also obviously open to any better suggestions on how to do this.
>>
>> Phil
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
