> BTW, if you want to just follow the latest changes, my history is up at http://github.com/philz/avro/commits/tool
I actually prefer to read the full patch again each time. Really!
Also, when you upload a new version to Jira, please don't add a version number to the file name. Jira will datestamp it, and that way we don't end up with a big list of files at the top of the page to choose among. (The top one is not always the most recent.)
You renamed the script, but you did not rename the various comments that still use the term "avrotool". These should all be changed to "avroj", no?
Most other projects commonly use the bin/ directory for executable scripts, and do not have two copies in releases. I'd prefer that. Is there a reason you've avoided that? I don't see the advantage of having the jar's version in the script: the script runs the code in a relative directory, giving preference to the classes directory over any avro-XX.jar file found.
The warnings generated by the script will be annoying to developers like me, who will use these scripts a lot. They should at least be prefixed "Warning", but I'd really prefer they were removed. As I said above, the contract of the script is to run the code in the tree where the script lives, giving precedence to built code over shipped code. If an end-user hacks some of our code and rebuilds, the script should run their hacked code without complaint. Many users hack open source code. This is normal, and does not warrant warnings.
Finally, how about naming it 'avroj' rather than 'avroj.sh'? Ant, forrest, findbugs, etc. all name their scripts without a '.sh'.