I don't like forking all of commons together. To say commons5-collections-1.0 doesn't work for me. Then, we have to get all of the commons projects to decide on "fork points." Am I understanding (c) correctly?
On 10/25/06, Kris Nuttycombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Colebourne wrote: > From: Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Well, the number is dependent on the strategy we are trying to achieve: >>> >>> a) using '4' would indicate that every major version will have a new package name, but then you can't use a major version to just remove deprections (a compatible major version change) >>> >>> b) using '5' would indicate the technology reason for the version. The package would be commons-collections5-1.0. >>> >>> c) using '5' as the commons name - commons5-collections-1.0 >>> >>> d) using '2' would just indicate a "major major" next generation release. The package would be commons-collections2-1.0. >>> > > I believe that our users will find "5 == JDK5" to be an easier concept to grasp One reason that I proposed (c) is simply that when you say "collections5" or "collections2" aloud it sounds like you're talking about a version of Collections, whereas if you say "commons5-collections" it's more suggestive of a fork, which is what we're really trying to get at. Again, I think that this convention would be useful for other commons projects trying to make the same switch. (a) -0 (b) +0 (c) +1 (d) -0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
