Hi Charles, On Nov 18, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Charles Matthew Chen wrote:
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.
Now that you point it out, I can't understand the comment either.If there are still some issues to be clarified maybe we can summarize them and have a discussion.
Craig
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 RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
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!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
