You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com> on 2002/10/17 23:04:19 UTC
[VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
The release candidate of 2.1 of commons collections is available at:
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-collections
/v2.1_rc1/
The release notes are at:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/collections/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.
html?rev=1.5&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
(the RC contains the wrong release notes, but this will be sorted for the
release ;-)
So, votes please
+1 [ ] Yes, release it
-1 [ ] No, I object because....
Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> >>2. In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
> >>commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
> >>Specification-Version: 1.0
> >>Implementation-Version: 2.0
> >
> >
> > Imp Version done.
> > Spec Version not done. Any suggestions on what it should be? 2.0? 2.1?
> > Following the format of Collections 1, I think it would be 1.0.
>
> I think it should be 2.1. The API has changed since 2.0, so there's a
> new specification even though the changes were backwards compatible.
>
I'm convinced [by your and Michael Davey's emails] :) I'm quite confident
I can fix this prior to a release without doing another rc [assuming this
is the only issue]. Mainly cuz I know to check the manifest now.
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>>2. In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
>>commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
>>Specification-Version: 1.0
>>Implementation-Version: 2.0
>
>
> Imp Version done.
> Spec Version not done. Any suggestions on what it should be? 2.0? 2.1?
> Following the format of Collections 1, I think it would be 1.0.
I think it should be 2.1. The API has changed since 2.0, so there's a
new specification even though the changes were backwards compatible.
If someone reimplements the collections 2.1 API, and specify
specification-version 2.0 and implementation-version 6643 (some random
build number), how would a user know that the implementation contains
the 2.1 classes (e.g. iterators)? Hence, I think the spec number should
be changed when the API changes. If we release a 2.1.1 bug-fix-only
release, then the spec would stay at 2.1 since the API specification
doesn't change.
>>3. In the .zip distributions (both source and binary), the text files
>>do not have windows line endings. I'm not sure whether that's such a
>>big deal, but you'd think that windows users that open the LICENSE.txt
>>file in notepad will want to be able to read it. Same goes for all the
>>source files and such. Recommend running ant's FixCRLF task on all
>>.txt, .html, .xml, and .java files when the .zip distributions are created.
>
> Need to test that to make sure it doesn't introduce ^Ms on non-Windows I
> guess. Not done yet.
yeah, this one is a bit semi-controversial, even to myself. I'd drop my
-1 even if this wasn't fixed.
> [needs rechecking:
>
>>4. Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist" does not
>>generate the exact same binary distribution as what are up on the
>>website. For the most part, this is probably due to #1, but once that's
>>fixed, this should be done againt to make sure things are ok. In
>>addition, the distributions that are generated from the "ant dist"
>>result in files with base name of commons-collections-2.0 instead of
>>commons-collections-2.1. This is due to the component.version specified
>>as 2.0 in the build.xml instead of 2.1.
>
>
> Note. I get files with 2.1, then rename them to 2.1_rc2 for the rc. Apart
> from cvs tags which have to be different, I want all other things to say
> 2.1.
agreed. They just shouldn't be 2.0. :)
I don't think I'll have time to recheck the rc2 packaging until Sat
evening, but if someone else can check for the issues I mentioned,
that'd be great.
regards,
michael
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
I've pushed out an rc2 to the site [should rc's be deleted after a
release?] which fixes all of Michaels issues [I think] except for the ones
below.
Advice on them welcome.
Hen
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> 2. In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
> commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
> Specification-Version: 1.0
> Implementation-Version: 2.0
Imp Version done.
Spec Version not done. Any suggestions on what it should be? 2.0? 2.1?
Following the format of Collections 1, I think it would be 1.0.
>
> 3. In the .zip distributions (both source and binary), the text files
> do not have windows line endings. I'm not sure whether that's such a
> big deal, but you'd think that windows users that open the LICENSE.txt
> file in notepad will want to be able to read it. Same goes for all the
> source files and such. Recommend running ant's FixCRLF task on all
> .txt, .html, .xml, and .java files when the .zip distributions are created.
Need to test that to make sure it doesn't introduce ^Ms on non-Windows I
guess. Not done yet.
[needs rechecking:
> 4. Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist" does not
> generate the exact same binary distribution as what are up on the
> website. For the most part, this is probably due to #1, but once that's
> fixed, this should be done againt to make sure things are ok. In
> addition, the distributions that are generated from the "ant dist"
> result in files with base name of commons-collections-2.0 instead of
> commons-collections-2.1. This is due to the component.version specified
> as 2.0 in the build.xml instead of 2.1.
Note. I get files with 2.1, then rename them to 2.1_rc2 for the rc. Apart
from cvs tags which have to be different, I want all other things to say
2.1.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
2, 4, 5 are all due to my inexperience with collections-building. I hadn't
really clicked that it built from cvs-tag and not from a manually checked
out cvs, so the fact that I'd pushed the correct build.xml into cvs after
the tagging hadn't clicked. [Sorry Stephen]
I can do an easy rc2 to fix this.
I believe 1 is due to the same thing. Iterators were not in 2_0 which is
what I think the build must have come from. In fact, I think I just need
to redeploy the damn rc. I screwed up.
3. This is a common problem for me in notepad, nearly as common as the
irritating [dos] mode in unix-vi :)
6 and 7 I can prolly sneak in and they sound like good ideas.
So my aim, if I stay awake, is to do an rc-2 build to correct most of
these, [after changing 6 and 7] and then see what wants to happen with 3.
Hen
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> -1. I think the following issues must be addressed first.
>
> 1. The source distributions (both .tar.gz and .zip) do not include the
> source for the "iterators" subpackage.
>
> 2. In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
> commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
> Specification-Version: 1.0
> Implementation-Version: 2.0
>
> I believe both of these should be 2.1
>
> 3. In the .zip distributions (both source and binary), the text files
> do not have windows line endings. I'm not sure whether that's such a
> big deal, but you'd think that windows users that open the LICENSE.txt
> file in notepad will want to be able to read it. Same goes for all the
> source files and such. Recommend running ant's FixCRLF task on all
> .txt, .html, .xml, and .java files when the .zip distributions are created.
>
> 4. Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist" does not
> generate the exact same binary distribution as what are up on the
> website. For the most part, this is probably due to #1, but once that's
> fixed, this should be done againt to make sure things are ok. In
> addition, the distributions that are generated from the "ant dist"
> result in files with base name of commons-collections-2.0 instead of
> commons-collections-2.1. This is due to the component.version specified
> as 2.0 in the build.xml instead of 2.1.
>
> 5. Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist-src" does
> not generate the exact same source distribution as what are up on the
> website. This is probably because the build.xml specifies the cvs.tag
> as COLLECTIONS_2_0 instead of COLLECTIONS_2_1 or COLLECTIONS_2_1_RC1 or
> whatever.
>
> 6. The cvs.root value in the build.properties.sample should probably be
> ":pserver:anoncvs@cvs.apache.org:/home/cvspublic" instead of
> :pserver:username@localhost:/home/cvs. It's a sample, but it'd be nice
> if it at least as the potential to work for someone.
>
> 7. StaticBucketMap should have an @since Collections 2.1 either to
> replace to to augment @since Avalon 4.0. My preference would be to replace.
>
> That's all I could see in the past hour or so. Wish I had more time to
> keep looking, but I gotta go to bed.
>
> regards,
> michael
>
> p.s. Stephen, if you give me the thumbs up (as release manager), I
> should be able to fix these items, but I won't have time to until
> Saturday evening at the earliest.
>
> p.p.s. I'm amazed at the size difference between the .tar.gz and the
> .zip distributions. The source distribution is nearly twice the size
> (almost 100% larger) in .zip form than it is in .tar.gz form. And the
> binary distribution the .zip is nearly 35% larger than the .tar.gz form.
> We sure they contain the same stuff? Looks like it to me, just want
> to make sure. :)
>
> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > +1 from me (I knew I forgot something...)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Colebourne" <sc...@btopenworld.com>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:04 PM
> > Subject: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
> >
> >
> >
> >>The release candidate of 2.1 of commons collections is available at:
> >>
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-collections
> >
> >>/v2.1_rc1/
> >>
> >>The release notes are at:
> >>
> >
> > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/collections/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.
> >
> >>html?rev=1.5&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> >>(the RC contains the wrong release notes, but this will be sorted for the
> >>release ;-)
> >>
> >>So, votes please
> >>+1 [ ] Yes, release it
> >>-1 [ ] No, I object because....
> >>
> >>
> >>Stephen
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >
> > <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >>For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> > <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> -1. I think the following issues must be addressed first.
+1 on addressing. Thanks for catching them.
> 1. The source distributions (both .tar.gz and .zip) do not include the
> source for the "iterators" subpackage.
Fixed.
> 2. In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
> commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
> Specification-Version: 1.0
> Implementation-Version: 2.0
>
> I believe both of these should be 2.1
I've changed the implementation version to 2.1 as this is obvious. Looking
at 2.0, it didn't do this at all, says the impl version was 1.1-dev and
the spec version was left as 1.0. Should Spec version be 2.0??
> 6. The cvs.root value in the build.properties.sample should probably be
> ":pserver:anoncvs@cvs.apache.org:/home/cvspublic" instead of
> :pserver:username@localhost:/home/cvs. It's a sample, but it'd be nice
> if it at least as the potential to work for someone.
Fixed.
> 7. StaticBucketMap should have an @since Collections 2.1 either to
> replace to to augment @since Avalon 4.0. My preference would be to replace.
Fixed. I did a replace.
Hopefully my decision to do an rc2 is okay. Most of the issues were due to
the 1 screwup, and I think I'm now up to par with the peculiarities of the
collections-deploy.
Incidentally, the LICENSE and MANIFEST.MF from 2.0 contain windows-only
line endings [ie, lots of ^Ms], so I assume previous builds were on
windows?
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
-1. I think the following issues must be addressed first.
1. The source distributions (both .tar.gz and .zip) do not include the
source for the "iterators" subpackage.
2. In the binary distribution (both .zip and .tar.gz), the
commons-collections.jar contains a Manifest.mf that lists:
Specification-Version: 1.0
Implementation-Version: 2.0
I believe both of these should be 2.1
3. In the .zip distributions (both source and binary), the text files
do not have windows line endings. I'm not sure whether that's such a
big deal, but you'd think that windows users that open the LICENSE.txt
file in notepad will want to be able to read it. Same goes for all the
source files and such. Recommend running ant's FixCRLF task on all
.txt, .html, .xml, and .java files when the .zip distributions are created.
4. Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist" does not
generate the exact same binary distribution as what are up on the
website. For the most part, this is probably due to #1, but once that's
fixed, this should be done againt to make sure things are ok. In
addition, the distributions that are generated from the "ant dist"
result in files with base name of commons-collections-2.0 instead of
commons-collections-2.1. This is due to the component.version specified
as 2.0 in the build.xml instead of 2.1.
5. Unpacking the source distribution and executing "ant dist-src" does
not generate the exact same source distribution as what are up on the
website. This is probably because the build.xml specifies the cvs.tag
as COLLECTIONS_2_0 instead of COLLECTIONS_2_1 or COLLECTIONS_2_1_RC1 or
whatever.
6. The cvs.root value in the build.properties.sample should probably be
":pserver:anoncvs@cvs.apache.org:/home/cvspublic" instead of
:pserver:username@localhost:/home/cvs. It's a sample, but it'd be nice
if it at least as the potential to work for someone.
7. StaticBucketMap should have an @since Collections 2.1 either to
replace to to augment @since Avalon 4.0. My preference would be to replace.
That's all I could see in the past hour or so. Wish I had more time to
keep looking, but I gotta go to bed.
regards,
michael
p.s. Stephen, if you give me the thumbs up (as release manager), I
should be able to fix these items, but I won't have time to until
Saturday evening at the earliest.
p.p.s. I'm amazed at the size difference between the .tar.gz and the
.zip distributions. The source distribution is nearly twice the size
(almost 100% larger) in .zip form than it is in .tar.gz form. And the
binary distribution the .zip is nearly 35% larger than the .tar.gz form.
We sure they contain the same stuff? Looks like it to me, just want
to make sure. :)
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> +1 from me (I knew I forgot something...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Colebourne" <sc...@btopenworld.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:04 PM
> Subject: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
>
>
>
>>The release candidate of 2.1 of commons collections is available at:
>>
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-collections
>
>>/v2.1_rc1/
>>
>>The release notes are at:
>>
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/collections/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.
>
>>html?rev=1.5&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
>>(the RC contains the wrong release notes, but this will be sorted for the
>>release ;-)
>>
>>So, votes please
>>+1 [ ] Yes, release it
>>-1 [ ] No, I object because....
>>
>>
>>Stephen
>>
>>
>>--
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
+1 from me (I knew I forgot something...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Colebourne" <sc...@btopenworld.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:04 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
> The release candidate of 2.1 of commons collections is available at:
>
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-collections
> /v2.1_rc1/
>
> The release notes are at:
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/collections/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1.
> html?rev=1.5&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> (the RC contains the wrong release notes, but this will be sorted for the
> release ;-)
>
> So, votes please
> +1 [ ] Yes, release it
> -1 [ ] No, I object because....
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1 of commons collections
Posted by Steve Downey <st...@netfolio.com>.
On Thursday 17 October 2002 05:04 pm, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The release candidate of 2.1 of commons collections is available at:
> http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/release/commons-collection
>s /v2.1_rc1/
>
> The release notes are at:
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/collections/RELEASE-NOTES-2.1
>. html?rev=1.5&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> (the RC contains the wrong release notes, but this will be sorted for the
> release ;-)
>
> So, votes please
> +1 [X] Yes, release it
> -1 [ ] No, I object because....
>
>
> Stephen
My non-binding vote. It's due, it fixes a lot of 2.0 bugs, and there are no
critical problems (that I've come across)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>