Ah, I misunderstood this comment: > > > Hmm, I'm not sure if this is a good idea to use the Apache package > namespace for a non Apache release. So to avoid any confusion and > problems I guess it would be better to upload an older release which > uses the old package names. > > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
I'll undo the package structure change. Charles. On Nov 18, 2007 2:43 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Jeremias. If there was maintenance to be done, it could > have been branched. > > Craig > > > On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > Charles, > > > > Why exactly did you revert the package renaming? If it's just for > > doing > > a maintenance release with the old package structure, a branch would > > have been better. In the end it has to be org.apache.sanselan. > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > > > On 17.11.2007 22:58:40 cmchen wrote: > >> Author: cmchen > >> Date: Sat Nov 17 13:58:22 2007 > >> New Revision: 596008 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=596008&view=rev > >> Log: > >> restored original package structure (from org.apache.sanselan.* -> > >> org.cmc.sanselan.*). > > <snip/> > > Craig Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > >
