On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >> Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um >> 14:06 Uhr: >> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was >>> done for 2.4? >>> >> >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version >> number, but that is a different discussion. >> >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I >> don't see a problem with that. > > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is > having multiple tags for the same release. > > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate > tags; the current list is: > > 2.2/ > 2.3/ > 2.4/ > 2.5/ > IO_1_0/ > IO_1_1/ > IO_1_2/ > IO_1_3/ > IO_1_3_1/ > commons-io-1.3.2/ > commons-io-1.4/ > commons-io-2.0/ > commons-io-2.0.1/ > commons-io-2.1/ > commons-io-2.5/ > > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs] > > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem. > > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons. > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.
Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location. If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that. But we cannot/must not change history. >> Benedikt >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16, <bimargul...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >> Author: bimargulies >>> >> Date: Fri May 6 12:16:39 2016 >>> >> New Revision: 1742534 >>> >> >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev >>> >> Log: >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions? >>> > >>> > This is potentially confusing. >>> > >>> > I think it should have been discussed first. >>> > >>> >> Added: >>> >> commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/ >>> >> - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/ >>> >> >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
