I feel the same, from the peanut gallery: Elliott explained the problems with the change but I don't think the consequences have been understood.
2c, Gary On Sat, Apr 4, 2026, 12:45 Martin Desruisseaux via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Chris > > Le 04/04/2026 à 17:21, Chris Lafren a écrit : > > > I don't understand where that "been there for 4 years" argument comes > > from. > > > I don't know neither, I just repeated what I saw on the mailing list, > but never verified. > > The thing that worry me a little bit is that I don't really know how > well understood the technical issues were before the vote took place. Do > anyone who voted A understand that this is equivalent to a vote for > changing the package name of a library even if we only added a few > classes to that package without breaking the compatibility of any > previously existing classes? Or are we victims of the fact that XML > namespaces often have a year or version number in their URL, which gives > a psychological incentive to increase that number even if we should not? > > If there is no answer to above question, I guess that I have to assume > that the vote was an informed choice in favor of preserving established > Maven 4 practice of the last few years, and that it was considered by > the majority as more important than creating technical debt. > > Martin > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
