On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Ceki Gulcu <c...@qos.ch> wrote: > Hi Ralph and co, > > The issue has been raised on the Maven list about 5 times, and if I > remember correctly, it was raised by yourself once or twice. However, > I am not aware of any progress on the issue. > > Anyway, my request involves allowing commons-logging v99 to be > published on ibiblio. This needs to be done once.
Why ibiblio and not their own repository? > Users who wish to exclude commons-logging would be doing so by > explicitly including version 99 in their pom.xml file. As long as we don't make a 100 right? With the negative being that anyone who might use 'LATEST' (not that I knew that was a Maven feature... must keep up) is going to find they can't use commons-logging anymore because they're get a duff one? Dumb question time - why do the version numbers have to increase? I'm not getting why 0.0 would fail, but if it does then it sounds like it would be bad for a later commons-logging release. Now if we're prepared to say there won't be another 1.1.x sure - but presumably we (and everyone) wants room for a 1.1.2 if some serious bug shows up? > It would be > discouraged in red and bold print against declaring version 99 in > libraries. Only end users, or application builders, would be "allowed" > to declare version 99. Where is it printed? How would people not be allowed? > While there is some small danger in some component declaring version > 99 in their pom.xml and this preventing the inclusion of > commons-logging proper, any library developer with half-a-brain would > refrain from doing that. > > Thus, the idea is to offer some additional comfort for those users > wishing to exclude commons-logging. Admittedly, there is no gain for > the Apache Commons community. We got into this mess because there wasn't a solution and we needed something for Commons libraries. Personally I think there is gain in gently end of lifeing Commons Logging in favour of a focused logging project. What most of my confused email at getting at is not regarding gain but loss - what do we lose by doing this. The ability to do another release? I'm not understanding the negative. > Thank you for taking my request into consideration. Related subject. Does sfl4j also need to release a v99? I'm very susceptible to getting off of commons-logging and onto sfl4j (and will probably vote +1 on that in Commons), but are we just exchanging one dependency pain for another, or is there a way the issue can be solved in the long term? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
