commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tillmann Gaida <>
Subject Re: [csv] release 1.0?
Date Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:00:52 GMT
It looks like the two issues revolve around the question if record
separators should always be some combination of CR and LF or if they
may be more exotic. I think that if someone made the call that
commons-csv will not support exotic record separators, both issues
could be closed very quickly. I'd support that call since I don't see
any use cases for exotic record separators. After all, CSV is a
specified format and while some tolerance is required to cover what
has become a family of formats, I think that exotic record separators
don't play a role here.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Gabriel Reid <> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Benedikt Ritter <> wrote:
>> Alpha, beta, or GA makes no difference if it's made public through maven
>> central. As soon as something is available there, people will start to use
>> it. This will lead to jar hell, when we decide/have to break BC between
>> alpha/beta and GA.
>> That said I'd just release trunk as 1.0, since nobody among us seems to
>> have the ability/time to fix the last outstanding issue.
> +1 to releasing trunk.
> We had a similar discussion about this a couple of months ago. The
> fact is that people are using commons-csv now, either by making their
> own build or by pulling the commons-csv codebase directly into their
> own codebase, and this will lead to the same jar hell issues when a
> "real" first release comes out. I think that delaying the release
> further, particularly for a couple of tickets that have been open for
> over two years, will only make this problem worse.
> - Gabriel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message