I agree. We should make it a new release instead of just replacing the
old one.
Now that it's been a few weeks since RC2 I'm leaning towards a 2.0
final instead of a fixed RC2 release. How do the other committers feel
about this?
Mike
On Oct 30, 2003, at 3:12 AM, Ortwin Glück wrote:
Now that it's been a few weeks since RC2 I'm leaning towards a 2.0
final instead of a fixed RC2 release. How do the other committers feel
about this?
Mike, according to the Jakarta project guidelines we may not release the
final version until we have a bug-free release candidate for two
Aha. That's good to know.
I'm working on another patch for bug 24309, which we may want to
include in 2.0. Are there any other outstanding problems?
Mike
On Nov 1, 2003, at 4:49 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
Now that it's been a few weeks since RC2 I'm leaning towards a 2.0
final instead of
Oleg,
Where did you find this? I have been looking for some official docs on
the subject, but cannot find any.
Thanks,
Mike
On Nov 1, 2003, at 4:49 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
Now that it's been a few weeks since RC2 I'm leaning towards a 2.0
final instead of a fixed RC2 release. How do
Mike,
I remember reading it a while ago, but I can't find any mentioning of
such a requirement anywhere on the Jakarta site anymore. Disregard my
remark.
oleg
On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 23:19, Michael Becke wrote:
Oleg,
Where did you find this? I have been looking for some official docs on
Personally I think one should not replace a release with a new version
without changing its name. This causes confusion. So at least call it
RC2-build2 or something like that.
To ensure this does not happen again in the future, should we include a
check in the build.xml for the JavaC version
Non-binding +1 to both suggestions.
Thanks
-Vincent
-Original Message-
From: Ortwin Glück [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 October 2003 09:13
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Subject: Re: cactus-13-1.5-rc and commons-httpclient-2.0-rc2.jar works
on
jdk1.4 and above only?
Personally I think one should not replace a release with a new version
without changing its name. This causes confusion. So at least call it
RC2-build2 or something like that.
It's very common in such cases to append an 'a' to the version. So I
suggest you name it -rc2a.
Regards,
Ingo
Thanks Michael. I'll ask Ajay to try it.
-Vincent
-Original Message-
From: Michael Becke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 October 2003 06:25
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Subject: Re: cactus-13-1.5-rc and commons-httpclient-2.0-rc2.jar works
on
jdk1.4 and above only?
I've
Assuming this new build fixes the problem, what is everyones' opinion
about how we should proceed? As I see it we have the following
options:
- replace the existing 2.0 RC2 distributions with the new ones and add
a note about the change to the HttpClient site
- create a new release 2.0 RC3
On 29/10/03 8:12 AM, Michael Becke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I've found the problem. In 1.4, Sun added
StringBuffer.append(StringBuffer) to compliment the existing
StringBuffer.append(Object). The problem is that STUPID me ran maven
for this release with 1.4. The method call was
I've created a new build and uploaded it to
http://www.apache.org/~mbecke/httpclient-2.0-rc2/. This build is
identical to the original RC2 build except for the following:
- the distribution was created with JDK 1.2.2
- HttpState has been changed to ensure that
12 matches
Mail list logo
