You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> on 2018/05/13 15:37:56 UTC
Review #62355
Hi,
I'd like to apply the patches in #62355 before 4.0.0, but this contains breaking changes especially for the POIXML* classes, i.e. their package moved.
At least for this, I'd like to have a thumbs up/down.
Andi
Re: Review #62355
Posted by "pj.fanning" <fa...@yahoo.com>.
+1 4.0.0 is a good place to make changes like this - otherwise, we'd need to
make them in a 5.0.0 release later.
--
Sent from: http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/POI-Dev-f2312866.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Re: Review #62355
Posted by Greg Woolsey <gr...@gmail.com>.
I also vote
a) -0 b) -1 c) +1
since 4.0 has lots of other breaking changes (removing deprecated APIs in
particular) requiring some import reorganizations isn't a big deal in my
opinion, and doesn't block the advancement toward supporting future Java
versions.
I'd rather not need to publish an additional JAR file and document which
one was needed for what contexts/purposes, and all the questions coming
from people not RTFM or JFGI.
Leaving things as-is doesn't hurt me in the next couple of years, but as
always, the longer one takes to migrate to the latest, the more pain is
involved when the time comes due.
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:17 AM Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We had a few arguments on #62355, but no decision and I don't want it to
> peter out.
>
> Would you mind, if we have a vote?
>
> a) leave it as-is - the classes stay in the java packages
>
> b) provide an additional one-big-jar
>
> c) apply the patch
>
> FYI - there might be more changes necessary for the automatic modules to
> work,
> but in my use case (POI-Visualizer) I didn't receive any more errors.
>
> Here is my vote: a) -0 b) -1 c) +1
>
> Of course I'm open for further discussions on b)
>
> Please have a look at code modifications votings before you vote:
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Andi
>
>
[RESULT] [VOTE] Re: Review #62355
Posted by Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org>.
The vote has passed with the consensus on applying the patch (3x +1) , which I'll do within the next days.
Andi
Re: [VOTE] Re: Review #62355
Posted by "pj.fanning" <fa...@yahoo.com>.
Also a) -0 b) -1 c) +1
--
Sent from: http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/POI-Dev-f2312866.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
[VOTE] Re: Review #62355
Posted by Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org>.
Hi,
We had a few arguments on #62355, but no decision and I don't want it to peter out.
Would you mind, if we have a vote?
a) leave it as-is - the classes stay in the java packages
b) provide an additional one-big-jar
c) apply the patch
FYI - there might be more changes necessary for the automatic modules to work,
but in my use case (POI-Visualizer) I didn't receive any more errors.
Here is my vote: a) -0 b) -1 c) +1
Of course I'm open for further discussions on b)
Please have a look at code modifications votings before you vote:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Andi
Re: Review #62355
Posted by Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ <ab...@for-scala.it>.
Hi,
If it is breaking, then it already is `4.0.0`. If you need to release before the load of other breaking changes, then they will be `5.0.0`.
Alain
Gesendet mit BlueMail
-------- Originale Nachricht --------
Von: Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org>
Gesendet: Sun May 13 12:37:56 GMT-03:00 2018
An: POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Betreff: Review #62355
Hi,
I'd like to apply the patches in #62355 before 4.0.0, but this contains breaking changes especially for the POIXML* classes, i.e. their package moved.
At least for this, I'd like to have a thumbs up/down.
Andi