> Remy,
>
> My intention is not to force myself to the project without asking
> permission, which is why I asked ... :-)
That's ok, I didn't read the charter correctly, sorry.
> I have been ranting a bit because I'd like to help now and wish to
> understand what is the release plan :
> * has 1.0 been released yet (the one the Slide relies on) ?
No.
> * if no, when is the date ?
No clue.
> * if I am admitted as committer, can I commit on the main branch now ?
Yes.
I don't consider myself a committer on this component anymore, and Slide
doesn't directly depend on the commons anymore.
> I just want to be in sycn with you guys ! And get the job done ! :-)
> However, Rodney has already done extensive work. I have also worked this
> week end to discover (after) that there was a rlwrefactoring branch. So
now
> I have modifications that conflict with Rodney's changes. I guess I'll
need
> to update with the rlwrefactoring branch and work from there. Should I
> submit patches to the rlwrefactoring branch then ?
Ask Rodney.
That branch shouldn't exist in the first place.
> If so, I would like to know when the rlwrefactoring branch will be merged
in
> the main trunk ? This is simply because I need the
> several-header-with-same-name patch in httpclient before I can release
> Cactus 1.2. However this patch modifies the external API as users who call
> HttpMethod.getHeaders() will no longer receive a hashtable of Header
objects
> but rather a Headers object which has methods like "Header
getHeader(String
> name)", "Header[] getHeaders(String name)", .... (this is my patch) or
each
> entry in the hashtable will actually be a Vector of Header (which I like
> less than the new Headers class).
>
> Could you explain the plans the httpclient releases ?
>
> Thanks Remy,
Remy
