On 3/4/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am proposing that we release [io] v1.2 > > RC1 is here: > http://people.apache.org/~scolebourne/commons-io/
Is it intentional for the source to contain the binary jar? > > Site here: > http://people.apache.org/~scolebourne/commons-io/site/ http://people.apache.org/~scolebourne/commons-io/site/checkstyle-report.html indicates a few easy things to fix up (I think). Otherwise the site looks fine I guess. Noticed that the binary dists (and previous release of io) put the javadoc in docs/*. Others seem to do it in docs/api/*. Yet more do it in docs/apidocs/* if memory serves. No idea if we want to standardise that. md5's are correct. I think the PGP stuff checked out. PGP exploded in errors trying to import the IO file; GPG managed it though and I've been advised to use GPG as PGP is crap. Verifying said that things were fine, though said that it couldn't confirm if the key belonged to you. Do we not keep release notes for various versions on the site? Also, why 'upgrade notes' instead of release notes? The JDiff report says the the diff is between 1_1 and CURRENT. I presume that would become 1_1 and 1_2 when you start tagging. The added pages on the JDiff report point to c:\ and not to http:... Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
