Inline... On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > > > 2) #22172 needs resolving. Timezone bug. > > > > We basically don't know what to do here. Given just a time, would CVS > > insert today's date or go with 1-1-1970. A bit hard to test as it appears > > that CVS lies here (?). The following don't work: > > > > apachecvs co -D '1 month ago' jakarta-commons/lang/ > > > > But this does: > > > > apachecvs co -D '400000 seconds ago' jakarta-commons/lang/ > > > > However, this doesn't even parse: > > > > bash-2.05a$ apachecvs co -D '3:00 GMT' jakarta-commons/lang/ > > cvs [checkout aborted]: Can't parse date/time: 3:00 GMT > > > > Should this be yanked then? Is there too much that is undefined to make this > useful? Is someone using this or was it just put in because someone thought > it would be a good idea. If someone is using and is happy, maybe more > Javadoc with a not on future improvements? I think so. The reality is.. no one really knows wtf it's meant to do. So how can we support it? I'm in favour of commenting the entire method out, with a note that it will be reviewed for the next release. That way it won't go in a build etc, but we'll do the legwork of finding out who submitted it and what their requirements are. > > > > > 3) Pete Gieser's javadoc patches. > > [not a blocker] > > I am +1 to make the Javadocs better here since it is (1) low risk (no code > change) and (2) improves the public face of the component. We have made My view was that if Pete submitted the patch, we'd push it, but if he hadn't then I wasn't going to hassle him. That though was because we were aiming for last Friday. I'll send him a note asking if he's got the patch ready. > great improvements to Javadoc for this release, and with a tiny bit more of > tidying we'll be done. I know that we can keep on doc'ing until the cows > some home but in this case, the patch is there, so it is just a matter of > reviewing and applying. IMHO, that is. As far as I know all we have is the promise of a patch. Did I miss it being submitted? > I was not aware until a post yesterday that we had today as a goal. From my > POV, a release soon would be great, but a couple of days at this point is > not a big deal, or even a little one. We don't have today as a goal per se. It's really a question of getting the todo's off the list so we can go for an rc2. That said, if you want to wait for something then we should. You can -1/delay a release at any time, even if you +1'd it previously [which was so long ago]. At least that's my interpretation :) > > 4) Nestable API Doc not accurate. #22393 > > > > Looking at JDK 1.2.2, Throwable has extended Exception since then, so hard > > to know what the problem this user is having. Any ideas? > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22393 > > > > And that's it? > > > > Just really decide on 2, and decide if 4 is an acceptable bug? > > I do not know what this means either :-P Basically, what do we do with the CVS one [yank sounds good] and is 4 a bug or something screwed up on the user's side. Or a versioning issue. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
