All looks good to me, thanks
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With 4 +1's, I've moved BitField and Validate up to the main package and
have added the util package to my list of directories I remove before
tagging.
Ignoring whether we call it id,
The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
Yeah. Hard to hang onto.
It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
However, it is unreasonable of us to release
--- Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff
goes
into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
in-line comment
-Original Message-
From: Michael Heuer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 18:00
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The discussion over UUID
With 4 +1's, I've moved BitField and Validate up to the main package and
have added the util package to my list of directories I remove before
tagging.
Ignoring whether we call it id, identifiers or whatever as simply removing
util from builds matches my needs.
Hen
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen
