Gary Gregory wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >> Sorry, for me this is going down the wrong road. For me different >> versions mean different components. Allowing multiple versions for >> modules in one component will exactly open the can of worms Gilles >> described below. We had that already with Jakarta. >> > > +1 and we do not need a Commons within Commons. > > For the case: > > commons-modproj-foo-1.0 > commons-modproj-bar-1.1 > > You'd just release > > commons-modproj-foo-1.0 > commons-modproj-bar-1.0 > > and then > > commons-modproj-foo-1.1 > commons-modproj-bar-1.1 > > If nothing has changed in commons-modproj-foo between 1.0 and 1.1, then > that's fine. You just get all your matching modules and you are done. > > >> I still propose commons-rng-tools as separate component. Because of this >> mail. KISS. >> > > I'm not even in favor of that. Commons is already loose ecosystem of > components, having sibling components will fog things up IMO. It's not > just what's compatible with what according to some guidelines, it's more > what has been tested with what so I can know for sure what will work. When > I get Commons Foo 1.3 and it has 10 modules, I know it's all MEANT to work > together, I KNOW it was all BUILT and TESTED together. > > Just keep it all in one component and make user's life easy.
We already have dbcp depending heavily on pool. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
