Early adopters who can provide valuable feedback might run into the
troubles we try to address by the package and group/artifact I'd changes.
Other than that, I would agree that there doesn't seem to be any reason to
change it now.
Sent from tablet device. Please excuse typos and brevity.
On Jul 3, 2012 5:58 PM, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 22:43, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/03/2012 11:04 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I recently started to work more on collections and cleaning up the
> trunk
> >>> to make it a candidate for a release and would like to ask a few
> >>> questions:
> >>>
> >>> - there is still lots of javadoc missing, moving the source code level
> >>> to Java 1.6 would allow the use of @Override in more places (instead
> >>> of putting a /** {inheritDoc} */ everywhere)
> >>>
> >>> this has been discussed for vfs a few weeks ago, and my
> >>> understanding was that this proposal was well received, so what do
> >>> you think about doing the same for collections?
> >>>
> >>> - unit tests: there are currently two unit tests for certain classes
> >>> that are almost similar, e.g. TestListOrderedMap and
> >>> TestListOrderedMap2. Does anybody know why this exists?
> >>>
> >>> also I would like to go to annotation based unit tests like in the
> >>> other components and rename the tests to the common style:
> >>> ClassNameTest.
> >>>
> >>> - consistency with commons rules. There are several things that are
> >>> different to other components atm:
> >>>
> >>> o authors contained in source files
> >>> o no changes.xml to track changes
> >>> o since and version tags are a bit different
> >>> o package.html should be package-info.java
> >>>
> >>> and I guess other things too that I have not spotted yet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are there any objections / suggestions to continue with the cleanup?
> >>
> >> A short overview clearly indicates that cc4 won't be a drop-in
> replacement
> >> for cc3. Therefore we have to change the groupId/artifactId now to
> >> org.apache.commons:commons-collections4 and the package should be
> renamed to
> >> org.apache.commons.collections4 (according the rules we used for lang3).
> >
> > Yes, there is already an issue for this: COLLECTIONS-382. The question
> > is do we change asap or shortly before a release (the way it was done
> > for commons-math afaik)?
>
> Doing the package rename just before release makes it possible to
> easily run Clirr.
> This can be used to help in creating the release notes - we'll need to
> document how to upgrade.
>
> AFAIK there's no benefit in changing the package rename earlier.
>
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
