On May 18, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
As a minimum, major changes require a package name change, and as
has been pointed out a maven id change.
So:
(1) minor incompatible changes (remove long deprecated methods or
fix details at the edges). These are compatible for 99% o
Matt Benson wrote:
Which still resounds with my preceding statement, though I admittedly hadn't
> thought it through that far. So anytime the API changes in a breaking
> way we need to jump major versions, append the new major version to the
> component name for the m2 artifact, and do likewise
On May 18, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski
wrote:
On May 18, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
HttpClient is another example that is complained about by users :)
The
only saving grace of v4 is that it is now named HttpCompone
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 18, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>>
>> HttpClient is another example that is complained about by users :) The
>> only saving grace of v4 is that it is now named HttpComponents Core
>> (fitting Stephen's suggestion of a ne
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> From: Jörg Schaible
> Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 2:19 AM
> Matt Benson wrote at Sonntag, 17. Mai
> 2009 22:31:
>
> > --- On Sun, 5/
On May 18, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
HttpClient is another example that is complained about by users :) The
only saving grace of v4 is that it is now named HttpComponents Core
(fitting Stephen's suggestion of a new name).
Well, this is kinda appropriate because I really have so
Ralph Goers wrote at Montag, 18. Mai 2009 09:53:
>
> On May 18, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I think we more or less all agree that such a new component should
>> play nice
>> with an older version in the classpath. However, while I am all for
>> evolving the current project
On May 18, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
I think we more or less all agree that such a new component should
play nice
with an older version in the classpath. However, while I am all for
evolving the current project with a new major release, we have to
consider
that it is not po
Matt Benson wrote at Sonntag, 17. Mai 2009 22:31:
> --- On Sun, 5/17/09, Matt Benson wrote:
>> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, James Carman
>> wrote:
[snip]
>> > The point (at least mine) is that we don't *need* to
>> create
>> > a new
>> > project here. We have the ability (if we jump
>> major
>> > ver
On May 17, 2009, at 11:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
HttpClient is another example that is complained about by users :) The
only saving grace of v4 is that it is now named HttpComponents Core
(fitting Stephen's suggestion of a new name).
Of course that means users are also confused due to chan
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
>> Matt Benson wrote:
>>>
>>> Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be
>>
>> > that the component + the major version # makes a "project."
>>
>> As I've said before, I won'
On May 17, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Matt Benson wrote:
Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be
> that the component + the major version # makes a "project."
As I've said before, I won't try and stop this, I no longer have the
moral rights here. I do believe
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
>> Matt Benson wrote:
>>>
>>> Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be
>>
>>> that the component + the major version # makes a "project."
>>
>> As I've said before, I w
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> Matt Benson wrote:
>>
>> Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be
>
>> that the component + the major version # makes a "project."
>
> As I've said before, I won't try and stop this, I no longer have the moral
> rights here.
Matt Benson wrote:
Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be
> that the component + the major version # makes a "project."
As I've said before, I won't try and stop this, I no longer have the
moral rights here. I do believe that this approach is profoundly wrong
however.
Consider
--- On Sun, 5/17/09, Matt Benson wrote:
> From: Matt Benson
> Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 1:01 PM
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, James Carman
> wrote:
>
> > From:
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 7:13 PM
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM,
> Stephen Colebourne
>
> wrote:
>
>> The name of the new project isn't the point of this discussion at all. Right
>> now I don't give a damn about the name.
>
> The point (at least mine) is that we don't *need* to create a new
> project here. We have the ability (if we jump major version numbers
> and change package names) to be i
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> STOP everyone, please! Go back and read the original email.
>
> The name of the new project isn't the point of this discussion at all. Right
> now I don't give a damn about the name.
The point (at least mine) is that we don't *need* to
On May 13, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
James Carman wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
Lets also say that the new project name cannot be numerically
based, so no
[lang2] or [lang5] projects, thats way too confusing. But [lang-
ng] would be
ok
James Carman wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
Lets also say that the new project name cannot be numerically based, so no
[lang2] or [lang5] projects, thats way too confusing. But [lang-ng] would be
ok.
And, when we want to "reboot" again, we name it [lang-nng]
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Would we be happy to have also commons6 and commons7?
I don't like the commons(x) idea at all. There could be some projects
that work just fine in JDK5. I think it's up to the individual
project to decide when they need to bump their major
w branch) or a
> completely new one.
> Both have pros and cons we should discuss.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----
> > Von: Jörg Schaible
> > An: dev@commons.apache.org
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 13. Mai 2009, 07:57:14 Uhr
>
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> From: Jörg Schaible
> Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 12:57 AM
> James Carman wrote at Mittwoch, 13.
> Mai 2009 04:30:
>
> > On Tue, May 12, 20
James Carman wrote at Mittwoch, 13. Mai 2009 04:30:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
>> If you feel like you'd want to call it "lang2" or "lang-ng" then just
>> call it lang 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever and keep a lang-1.x branch around for
>> stability fixes.
>
> I thought we ag
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
> If you feel like you'd want to call it "lang2" or "lang-ng" then just call
> it lang 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever and keep a lang-1.x branch around for
> stability fixes.
I thought we agreed that we would "jump" major version numbers (as you
sugges
Gary Gregory wrote:
Ah, em, we cannot do exactly that of course but the idea is that a new
project/version can reflect two ideas: A new JRE requirement and/or a
new implementation of the project SO different to warrant a new project.
I also don't like "-ng" or even "blah2".
Specifically, I d
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:19 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: RE: [all] Rebooting commons projects
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Carman [mai
> -Original Message-
> From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:33 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
&g
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
>
> Lets also say that the new project name cannot be numerically based, so no
> [lang2] or [lang5] projects, thats way too confusing. But [lang-ng] would be
> ok.
And, when we want to "reboot" again, we name it [lang-nng]?
-
On May 12, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Every so often, projects need to "reboot". Its healthy and useful,
as most developers want innovate rather than maintain.
Up until now, we've tried to do this within the existing project.
Its failed miserably.
So, lets just accept
31 matches
Mail list logo
