> > - the jar is getting a little porky, at nearly 250K. > > 3.0 and removing deprecations might help a little there.
Should we plan on delivering whatever we delete, like the enum package, in a separate jar for backwards binary compatibility? Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:37 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] 2.2 RC1 rolled and ready for comments > > On 9/20/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Should we be using viewcvs.cgi still now we are on svn? Or is there a > > viewvc.cgi? > > > > - Tasks xdoc needs Stringbuf removing. > > > > - The release notes mentions changes from 2.0 to 2.1, which it probably > > shouldn't. > > > > - jar manifest doesn't include the X-... attributes detailed in the > > release docs for the build JDK. > > Will change the above tonight. I left the 2.0->2.1 so people could > figure out 2.0 to 2.2; but I was pretty vague on whether there was any > value in that. > > > - there is no src-ide.zip in the binary download (io does this...) > > I've no itch to do that - though I do want to make a src.jar and > javadoc.jar for the Maven-2 repository. I've been doing that by > pulling the src out of all of the commons distros and making jars, > rather than for just a single project. > > > - the jar is getting a little porky, at nearly 250K. > > 3.0 and removing deprecations might help a little there. > > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
