Github user arunvinudss commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/64
@chtompki Closing this as we decided to remove it in 2.0. Thanks for the
input @PascalSchumacher !
---
-
To unsubscribe,
Github user arunvinudss commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/64
@chtompki Yes Rob I would definitely vote in the affirmative. Since the
functionality provided by that method is trivial I would be surprised if anyone
was using it in the first place.
--
Github user chtompki commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/64
@arunvinudss - would you vote for removing it if we were to roll a, very
hypothetical, 2.0 right now? If so, then I'd say we have our decision.
---
---
Github user arunvinudss commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/64
Hey @PascalSchumacher! In my understanding we didn't make a decision yet. A
part of the reason is that it was exposed as a public method and since
consumers would potentially lose a function
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/64
Thanks for the pull request.
Imho we should make it absolutely clear that users should not use this
method. Therefore I'm against making the formulation "softer".
---
---
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/64
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/13407041)
Coverage remained the same at 98.236% when pulling
**f972a5b87f57ac93476bf3
