Sure,

I can output a clirr report in text or xml, is there any predefined templates to convert it to a more readable format (i.e. HTML)?

Rory


Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Perhaps you could run a clirr report, and publish the result? That way we can 
all see what the amount of change in the API is.

And yes, this cold potentially be a problem with any non backwards-compatible 
release. As I said before, I'm driving to find out how this release will sit 
within the wider OSS and user community, and to try and avoid jar-hell.

Stephen

----- Original Message ----
From: Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September, 2006 8:53:27 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release [net] version 2.0

Stephen

I'm afraid I dont really get waht you're asking? Surely this would be a problem with any project that produces a non-backwards-compatible release? As for the API, it is 99% backwards compatible - so far, there are little changes to the public interface.

Stephen Colebourne wrote:
My question is whether 2.0 is backwards compatible with 1.0. If it isn't, then how are we going to handle the situation where two different OSS projects refer to two different versions of [net] - jar-hell.

Stephen


Rory Winston wrote:
Steve

Sorry, I should have been more specific

1) Yes, there will be two separate branches of development. At the moment, the trunk is the 1.x branch, whereas there is a separate branch for JDK 5.0 dev. We can keep this the way it is, or swap the trunk and branch at some stage.

2) We need two sites, for sure. I think an easy way would be to do the separate Maven 1 (1.x codebase) and Maven 2.0 (2.x codebase) builds, and just put a link from one site to the other in the Maven menus. Otherwise, if Maven 2 can handle this kind of situation out of the box, we should move the 1.x build over to Maven 2 as well.What do you think?

Hope this helps
Rory

Steve Cohen wrote:

Rory Winston wrote:

OK, seeing as we have reached some kind of consensus on how to handle backards-incompatible JDK releases, I'm restarting the vote for a release of Commons::Net 2.0 (the JDK 5.0 branch).

As per usual, just respond with

+1
+0
-0
-1

Thanks
Rory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Sorry, Rory, but I think you need to express the consensus that you think we are voting on. You haven't done that. "release of Commons::Net 2.0 (the JDK 5.0 branch)" doesn't get to the heart of all the issues.

1: Are there two "official" branches or is 1.4.x relegated to "backward compatibility mode"? I would insist that there be two branches until Sun puts 1.4.x into EndOfLife mode.

2. Is the site going to be organized to reflect the two branches?

If those two points are part of your "motion", I'm +1. Otherwise, I'm -1.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to