Jürgen Hoffmann wrote:
[X] +1 Update versions
[ ] +0 go ahead I do not care
[ ] -0 I don't care
[ ] -1 The updated libraries make current 2.3.2 applications useless
My main concern was that updating to these versions did not impact
others, but since we don't do a release too often so we should take the
opportunity to move forward when we have it. In particular though:
* commons-email-1.1 would seem to go hand in hand with JavaMail 1.4,
also see http://commons.apache.org/email/release_1_1.html which
mentions a couple of bug fixes that seem fairly important.
* commons-fileupload-1.2.1 contains a fix to an issue raised by
Thomas V.
(http://commons.apache.org/fileupload/changes-report.html) so I
imagine he is already running a patched version of this.
Usually a minor digit increase would signify a bug fix, so 1.2.0 to
1.2.1 for fileupload would usually be addressing problems and hence a
good thing. A point release (e.g. commons-io from 1.3.1, skipping
1.3.2, to 1.4) might add features but hopefully be backwards compatible
(in most cases the version numbers we are moving to state binary and
source compatibility). In summary, I prefer to take the opportunity to
adopt the current versions when we have it, but will certainly balance
this with testing.
Looking at version numbers is interesting when we look at what are we
doing - going from 2.3.2 to 2.3.3 radically understates the significance
of the changes made. Unfortunately history has us a little trapped:
* turbine-3, which no longer exists, is still in use by scarab,
though it seems that occasional efforts are being made to port
this over to the trunk. [Is anyone else out there still using
turbine-3?]
* the trunk is called turbine-2.4-dev - I think this is where we all
really want to be, and the release being worked on now is really
setting us up to move this ahead
* here we are working to release 2.3.3, which without the historical
baggage would clearly be worth calling 2.4
I think after 2.3.3 is out of the way we should consider our version
numbering carefully in order to get back on track. My suggestion would
be that what we currently call 2.4-dev should become 4.0-dev.
I am also +1 for going straight to 2.3.3-rc.
My thanks to Thomas, Siegfried and Jurgen (welcome back) for making such
great strides ahead in the last couple of weeks.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
