commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Imaging 1.0 from RC5
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:24:36 GMT
Thank you Damjan for cutting another release!

In the future, please summarize changes from RC to RC in the VOTE email.
The link to the VOTE thread is too much of a hunt to understand what's
changed. I might as well look at SVN.

I admire Damjan's persistence and patience in seeing through another RC
toward 1.0 :)

[X] -0 OK, but really should fix...

- The RAT report shows "40 Unknown Licenses", either add license headers or
get RAT to ignore these files.

- On the "References" page, all the links to Geocities are broken. Either
remove the broken links or link to the internet archive wayback machine or

- Is the to-do list on the site 100% accurate?

- I would also change the title of the page from "To Do" to "Roadmap" and
talk about the upcoming 2.0 plan how 1.0 relates to 0.97 (new package).

- We need a "Migrating from 0.97 to 1.0" and "Plans for 2.0" sections, IMO.

- For the page "Project Status and History", I would just call it
"History". This page is missing versions.

- Javadoc: Most packages are missing a package-level description.

- Findbugs reports
org.apache.commons.imaging.icc.IccProfileParser.issRGB(ICC_Profile) has
Boolean return type and returns explicit null BAD_PRACTICE (and others like
For methods like
org.apache.commons.imaging.icc.IccProfileParser.issRGB(ICC_Profile), it
seems to complicate the code a lot more to return a Boolean instead of a
We should consider changing these APIs to boolean. I've only looks at
and this one case seems OK for change.

- Checkstyle: We have a lot of 'Useless parentheses', the few I've checked
seem like they should be removed. This is a lot of work to check one at a
time and I do not think we should remove them all automatically (like
Eclipse can do) unless the person most familiar with the code chooses to do

- I'm not a fan of using interfaces (instead of classes) to define
constants, but if this in fact the style we're going forward with, we
should not redundantly define each constant as public, a fact that is
implied by being an interface member (and which Checkstyle complains about.)

- Findbugs: WRT byte arrays and "malicious code", it seems safe to ignore
these since we are working with bytes all the time. I'm not sure if it is
worth Javadoc'ing this intention or adding some kinds of comment in the
source Findbugs can use to avoid these warnings. It's probably NOT worth
doing, but I thought I'd mention it.

Tested with:

Apache Maven 3.1.1 (0728685237757ffbf44136acec0402957f723d9a; 2013-09-17
Maven home: C:\Java\apache-maven-3.1.1\bin\..
Java version: 1.7.0_45, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_45\jre
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: Cp1252
OS name: "windows 7", version: "6.1", arch: "amd64", family: "windows"


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Damjan Jovanovic <> wrote:

> Please vote on releasing commons-imaging 1.0 from RC5.
> RC4 and its problems and their fixes were in this thread:
> There were also many recent discussions on the development list.
> Imaging 1.0 RC5 is available here:
> (SVN revision
> 3391)
> Maven artifacts:
> imaging/
> Change log(s):
> Tag:
> <
> >(SVN
> revision 1537825)
> Site:
> I have tested it with OpenJDK 6 on FreeBSD 9.1.
> Please review and vote. This vote will close no sooner than 72 hours from
> now, on Monday 4 November 2013 at 12:00 GMT.
> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
> [ ] +0 OK, but...
> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
> Thank you!
> Damjan Jovanovic

E-Mail: |
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <>
Spring Batch in Action <>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message