[lang] What's left for 3.0?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[lang] What's left for 3.0?

Matt Benson-2
See title.

-Matt

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

Henri Yandell
See JIRA :)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310481&fixfor=12311714&resolution=-1&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> See title.
>
> -Matt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

Henri Yandell
I took care of a few issues. 9 left to go; or they need to be declared
as 'fix in 3.1 or 4.0'. I think at this point that anything that is a
backwards incompatibility but not for 3.0 (i.e. the potential 4.0)
should be resolved as 'wontfix'. The StrTokenizer issue jumps to mind.

Also need to look for TODO statements in the code; I think I have a
few in the translator stuff that I need to tidy up.

Hen

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> See JIRA :)
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310481&fixfor=12311714&resolution=-1&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> See title.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

Henri Yandell
And now down to 6 issues.

1 of them is a non-issue for release (JDK 1.7 has bugs); 1 is documentation.

Of the other 4:

LANG-462 - FastDateFormat supporting parse.  Need to look at the
patches. Blocker for 3.0.
LANG-544 - ToStringStyle.registry thread issues.   Need to consider
solution. Not a blocker for 3.0 imo.
LANG-624 - java.version vs java.specification.version.  I'm +1 to
moving to specification.version. Blocker for 3.0.
LANG-288 - StrTokenizer needs to support access to the token
separators.  It's an enhancement; while now is the time to implement
this, no one has. I'm thinking it should be punted to 3.1 and if the
solution involves incompatibility, it can wait for 4.0.

So mostly we need to look at LANG-462, and resolve the debate on LANG-624.

Hen

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I took care of a few issues. 9 left to go; or they need to be declared
> as 'fix in 3.1 or 4.0'. I think at this point that anything that is a
> backwards incompatibility but not for 3.0 (i.e. the potential 4.0)
> should be resolved as 'wontfix'. The StrTokenizer issue jumps to mind.
>
> Also need to look for TODO statements in the code; I think I have a
> few in the translator stuff that I need to tidy up.
>
> Hen
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> See JIRA :)
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310481&fixfor=12311714&resolution=-1&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> See title.
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

Henri Yandell
3 issues now, by punting the three non-blockers up to 3.1.

Mostly it means that we need to decide what to do on LANG-624 and then
get releasing.

Hen

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And now down to 6 issues.
>
> 1 of them is a non-issue for release (JDK 1.7 has bugs); 1 is documentation.
>
> Of the other 4:
>
> LANG-462 - FastDateFormat supporting parse.  Need to look at the
> patches. Blocker for 3.0.
> LANG-544 - ToStringStyle.registry thread issues.   Need to consider
> solution. Not a blocker for 3.0 imo.
> LANG-624 - java.version vs java.specification.version.  I'm +1 to
> moving to specification.version. Blocker for 3.0.
> LANG-288 - StrTokenizer needs to support access to the token
> separators.  It's an enhancement; while now is the time to implement
> this, no one has. I'm thinking it should be punted to 3.1 and if the
> solution involves incompatibility, it can wait for 4.0.
>
> So mostly we need to look at LANG-462, and resolve the debate on LANG-624.
>
> Hen
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I took care of a few issues. 9 left to go; or they need to be declared
>> as 'fix in 3.1 or 4.0'. I think at this point that anything that is a
>> backwards incompatibility but not for 3.0 (i.e. the potential 4.0)
>> should be resolved as 'wontfix'. The StrTokenizer issue jumps to mind.
>>
>> Also need to look for TODO statements in the code; I think I have a
>> few in the translator stuff that I need to tidy up.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> See JIRA :)
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310481&fixfor=12311714&resolution=-1&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> See title.
>>>>
>>>> -Matt
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

Jörg Schaible-3
Hi Hen,

Henri Yandell wrote:

> 3 issues now, by punting the three non-blockers up to 3.1.
>
> Mostly it means that we need to decide what to do on LANG-624 and then
> get releasing.

In the light of LANG-577, I wondered if the mutable package is still
necessary looking at the concurrent stuff of the JDK. I tried once to start
a discussion about it
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel/112282), but got
no response.


- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

jodastephen
On 27 January 2011 08:45, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In the light of LANG-577, I wondered if the mutable package is still
> necessary looking at the concurrent stuff of the JDK. I tried once to start
> a discussion about it
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel/112282), but got
> no response.

The mutable classes cover a broader range of stuff than the JDK
Atomic* classes. And are a useful element in their own right.

Stephen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [lang] What's left for 3.0?

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:04
> To: Commons Developers List; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [lang] What's left for 3.0?
>
> 3 issues now, by punting the three non-blockers up to 3.1.
>
> Mostly it means that we need to decide what to do on LANG-624 and then
> get releasing.
>
> Hen

Getting close... :) I agree with the punting. Release early, release often.

Gary

>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > And now down to 6 issues.
> >
> > 1 of them is a non-issue for release (JDK 1.7 has bugs); 1 is
> documentation.
> >
> > Of the other 4:
> >
> > LANG-462 - FastDateFormat supporting parse.  Need to look at the
> > patches. Blocker for 3.0.
> > LANG-544 - ToStringStyle.registry thread issues.   Need to consider
> > solution. Not a blocker for 3.0 imo.
> > LANG-624 - java.version vs java.specification.version.  I'm +1 to
> > moving to specification.version. Blocker for 3.0.
> > LANG-288 - StrTokenizer needs to support access to the token
> > separators.  It's an enhancement; while now is the time to implement
> > this, no one has. I'm thinking it should be punted to 3.1 and if the
> > solution involves incompatibility, it can wait for 4.0.
> >
> > So mostly we need to look at LANG-462, and resolve the debate on LANG-
> 624.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> I took care of a few issues. 9 left to go; or they need to be declared
> >> as 'fix in 3.1 or 4.0'. I think at this point that anything that is a
> >> backwards incompatibility but not for 3.0 (i.e. the potential 4.0)
> >> should be resolved as 'wontfix'. The StrTokenizer issue jumps to mind.
> >>
> >> Also need to look for TODO statements in the code; I think I have a
> >> few in the translator stuff that I need to tidy up.
> >>
> >> Hen
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Henri Yandell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> See JIRA :)
> >>>
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=1
> 2310481&fixfor=12311714&resolution=-
> 1&sorter/field=priority&sorter/order=DESC
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>> See title.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Matt
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]