On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello Thomas, > > first of all: many thanks for the great effort you put into collections. I > think aside from math and lang, collections is probably one of the most > used components. It's really cool to see this happening. So here is my > vote: > > - Checksums and signatures are okay. > - Site looks good, but: > - PMD shows some errors that seem to be easy to fix (without having > looked at the code). If I have spare time this week, I'll try to have a > look. > - Sources and tag have the same content > - Builds fine from tag and from sources with: > > Apache Maven 3.0.5 (r01de14724cdef164cd33c7c8c2fe155faf9602da; 2013-02-19 > 14:51:28+0100) > Maven home: /Applications/dev/maven/apache-maven-3.0.5 > Java version: 1.7.0_25, vendor: Oracle Corporation > Java home: > /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.7.0_25.jdk/Contents/Home/jre > Default locale: de_DE, platform encoding: UTF-8 > OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.8.4", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac" > > One thing that could be improved is RELEASE-NOTES.txt. I think it would be > good to make very clear what "alpha" means (have we agreed on this? I'm > not sure). If BC breaking changes are possible but unlikely we should > document this in the release notes. However no blocker. > There is a document describing the type of releases to expect from commons: http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html Strangely enough, it does not mention alpha releases, but it was discussed that alpha releases are the only ones allowing to break BC (apart from major releases of course). I would have preferred a beta release anyways: better reflects the state of the library, do we need a beta after an alpha, or can we directly release afterwards? Thomas
