[VFS] release preparation: clirr report

[Bernd Eckenfels <ec...@zusammenkunft.net>]

Hello,

in preparation of the VFS2.1 release I was reviewing the Clirr report.
It has quite a number of errors, especially in regard to new Interface
methods.

# Method 'public long write(org.apache.commons.vfs2.FileContent)' has
been added to an interface
# Method 'public boolean isFile()' has been added to an interface
# Method 'public int deleteAll()' has been added to an interface

I think those are all compatible in normal usage since implementors
would expand a abstract base class.

Is there a way to cover that in Clirr? Would we keep the "errors" in
the release and describe it in the release notes?

There are also some changes to providers. They look less clear but most
of them are protected methods. Why does that show up in the clirr
report at all?

I have a sample site here (not sure if it is correctly released but it
is enough to look at the Clirr)

http://people.apache.org/~ecki/commons-vfs/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html

Gruss
Bernd



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [VFS] release preparation: clirr report

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

I'm not sure how fine grained control we have or want to get over Clirr.

For now, I'd rather know about all the differences. We can document how to
interpret the Clirr report on the site and release notes as well.

Gary


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <ec...@zusammenkunft.net>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> in preparation of the VFS2.1 release I was reviewing the Clirr report.
> It has quite a number of errors, especially in regard to new Interface
> methods.
>
> # Method 'public long write(org.apache.commons.vfs2.FileContent)' has
> been added to an interface
> # Method 'public boolean isFile()' has been added to an interface
> # Method 'public int deleteAll()' has been added to an interface
>
> I think those are all compatible in normal usage since implementors
> would expand a abstract base class.
>
> Is there a way to cover that in Clirr? Would we keep the "errors" in
> the release and describe it in the release notes?
>
> There are also some changes to providers. They look less clear but most
> of them are protected methods. Why does that show up in the clirr
> report at all?
>
> I have a sample site here (not sure if it is correctly released but it
> is enough to look at the Clirr)
>
> http://people.apache.org/~ecki/commons-vfs/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory