>>- We can't release it without samples being part of the
>>xdoclet-1.2.0.tar and xdoclet-1.2.0.zip bundles. Please correct the
>>build.xml if it doesn't copy samples to target.
+1 - including samples would be a Good Thing.
>>- I don't find any uses for xdoclet-lib-1.2.0.tar and
>>xdoclet-lib-1.2.0.zip. Remove them.
I personally like the idea of releasing -lib builds for bug fix
releases. I don't think the 1.2 version warrants a -lib build, but I
think it'll be useful for 1.2.1 and such. Struts, for example, does
this, and its beneficial to seasoned Struts developers to pull down only
the API stuff and not all the samples and docs.
So +1 on future -lib distributions, but maybe not for 1.2 since its a
big difference release.
My votes:
> [Add samples to xdoclet-1.2.0: +1]
+1
> [Drop the xdoclet-lib-1.2.0 files: +1]
+0 (should at least do -lib builds for 1.2.1)
> [Include translate zip in beta: -0]
+0
> [Include translate zip in final: +1]
+0 (from my perspective, there is only *one* language :) - sad but true).
> [Remove non-source files from xdoclet-all/src: +1]
-0 no strong opinion here, but I find src distributions handy to have
around for projects I'm not a committer on :)
> [Rename xdoclet-all to xdoclet-src:
> +1 if it does only contain source
+1
> -0 if it still has the other files]
-0
> [Rename xdoclet-1.2.0 to xdoclet-bin-1.2.0: +1]
-0 why?
> [Include xtags bug fix: +1]
+1
> [Include XDoc.getFirstSentence() fix: +1]
+1
> [Tag/build xjavadoc separately: +1]
+0
> [XJavadoc version: 1.0-beta]
+1
> [Tag/build xdocletgui separately: +1]
+0
> [Promote xdocletgui & plugin from alpha version no.: +1]
+0
> [Add "beta" to xdoclet's version no.: +1]
+1
Erik
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
