On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:04 AM, <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: > > ----- "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> I guess there are some other logical alternatives to consider: >> >> 1) s/2.2/3.0 s/3.0/4.0 >> 2) abandon 2.2 release >> >> Option 1) may not be that bad - saves work reverting the incompatible >> stuff remaining and solves Luc's (and anyone else who has been using >> trunk/2_X) problem and also keeps us consistent with Commons >> guidelines. Option 1) looks distasteful, but could result in 3.0 >> being released sooner. >> >> My personal preference is >> >> 0) revert incompatible changes other than those required to fix bugs >> and then proceed with 2.2 release > > I would prefer 0) over 1) but would even prefer releasing 2.2 with its > current state,
I still want to fix some of the other compat breaks. Phil after solving the last issues and the Gump failure. This > failure is probably due to the new scalb(double,int) function not handled > by Sebb's generic test framework for now, but he is working on this. > > Luc > >> >> Phil >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
