Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-08 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Niall Pemberton > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: >>> My general thinking is: >>> >>> "+1, thanks for doing this" >>> >>> mixed with: >>> >>> "We now have two versions in develo

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-06 Thread Henri Yandell
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: >> My general thinking is: >> >> "+1, thanks for doing this" >> >> mixed with: >> >> "We now have two versions in development at the same time, we can no >> longer just charge along codi

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-06 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > My general thinking is: > > "+1, thanks for doing this" > > mixed with: > > "We now have two versions in development at the same time, we can no > longer just charge along coding - we need process" > > Namely, do we put anything in 2.5 as long

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-04 Thread Henri Yandell
My general thinking is: "+1, thanks for doing this" mixed with: "We now have two versions in development at the same time, we can no longer just charge along coding - we need process" Namely, do we put anything in 2.5 as long as it doesn't affect backwards compat, do we keep adding enhancements

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-03 Thread sebb
On 03/02/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Niall Pemberton > wrote: > > For anyone who hasn't noticed I've been back-porting Commons Lang > > changes from the trunk to a 2.x branch: > > > >http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_2_X/ >

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-03 Thread Matt Benson
I'll only say that not autoboxing by default is already over-paranoid when you consider that you're usually talking about doing reflective invocations, for which Objects (and therefore unboxing) are needed to make calls with primitive arguments. If you're talking about compiler-level stuff

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-03 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > If you're offering, the changes I made yesterday to ClassUtils to default > autoboxing based on RT Java version should probably be ported.  After that, > autoboxing can actually just be defaulted to true in trunk as it will > require Java 5+ at

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-03 Thread Matt Benson
If you're offering, the changes I made yesterday to ClassUtils to default autoboxing based on RT Java version should probably be ported. After that, autoboxing can actually just be defaulted to true in trunk as it will require Java 5+ at RT. Thanks, Matt On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Niall

Re: [lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-02 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > For anyone who hasn't noticed I've been back-porting Commons Lang > changes from the trunk to a 2.x branch: > >    http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_2_X/ > > AFAIC its getting close to being ready for a 2.5 relea

[lang] Preparing for a 2.5 release

2010-02-02 Thread Niall Pemberton
For anyone who hasn't noticed I've been back-porting Commons Lang changes from the trunk to a 2.x branch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_2_X/ AFAIC its getting close to being ready for a 2.5 release. LANG-204 is currently in progress and I will try to post a su