Matt Benson wrote at Sonntag, 17. Mai 2009 22:31: > --- On Sun, 5/17/09, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >> 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 >> > 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." 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 possible to have the same artifact twice in the same Maven project with a different version only. It does not matter if foo-1.x can be used at same time with foo-2.x, Maven does simply not support this scenario. Therefore we would have to change the artifact name anyway to something like foo2-2.x ... - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
