This topic was highly contentious last time around, which is probably why Greg was thinking of a vote. But then again, perhaps opinions have changed. I was probably the biggest proponent of versioned jars in the past, and my opinion hasn't changed.
-T On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Martijn Dashorst < [email protected]> wrote: > Just to be clear: when there consensus has been achieved, there's no > need for an official vote, unless it is something legally binding such > as new committer, pmc member or release. > > Martijn > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Todd Volkert<[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (in favor of a vote :) ) > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is appropriate > to > >> raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package names and > >> adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this issue > and > >> would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file names > at > >> this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put this to > a > >> vote. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. >
