--- On Sun, 5/17/09, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects > To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org> > Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 1:01 PM > > > > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > wrote: > > > From: James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > Subject: Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects > > To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org> > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 7:13 PM > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM, > > Stephen Colebourne > > <scolebou...@btopenworld.com> > > 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 > create > > a new > > project here. We have the ability (if we jump > major > > version numbers > > and change package names) to be innovative with the > > existing projects. > > We don't have to guarantee backward > compatibility between > > major > > versions. > > > > This has historically been the view taken in Commons, and > I'm not seeing a consensus to change that view. [SNIP] Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be that the component + the major version # makes a "project." -Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org