--- 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
