My comments are in-lined: > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 19:26 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [lang] 2.0 left to do > > > 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.
+1 > > > > > > > 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 assumed erroneously it seems from the wording of a previous post that the patch /had/ been 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 :) I am not /really/ a -1 as much as I thought that a tiny bit of extra work would have been ok wrt Javadoc. Aside from that I think we are good to go. Gary > > > > 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]
