Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as: > > JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.3.0 > JDBC4 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.4.0 > > Unless you have expectations to continue supporting JDBC3 in the next > major release, I would seriously suggest a version bump. The typical > use case of major version bumps are incompatibilities. > > PS: You could also try splitting 1.3.0 / 1.3.5, but you would have to > bring in a 4 digit for patch releases -- to avoid 5 1.3.0 patches > incrementing to 1.3.5. > > Paul > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >>> >>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. >>>>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward >>>>> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId for this and allow >>>>> 1.3 with JDBC3 to be a real drop-in replacement? If somebody works with >>>>> ranges, he might get the newer dbcp anyway and wondering about the >>>>> incompatibility later. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore we might better do: >>>>> >>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 >>>>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 >>>> Thanks Jorg and Grzegorz. Really appreciate the feedback. It is >>>> important that we get this right, minimizing confusion / bad impact >>>> to maven users and making upgrades both safe and as easy as >>>> possible. I was thinking the same way as you, Jörg, on the groupId >>>> change for the jdbc4 version. >>> >>> Note, that I also changed the artifactId "dbcp vs. dbcp4" ;-) >>> >>> However, thinking about it, I am not sure if this is necessary and we can >>> really keep the artifactId (your first plan). If somebody uses both >>> artifacts (by transitive deps), his project is broken anyway. We simply have >>> to point out in the website and README, that there are really two different >>> commons-dbcp-1.3.jar files. Or is it too much confusion? >> >> That worries ma a little bit, more for Ant than Maven users. >> Incompatible jars with the same name in the wild is asking for >> trouble (well, like the old days ;). >> >> Another option, given that we don't have to mess with relocation >> poms, is just to use org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 for the jdbc4 version. >> >> Phil >> >> >>> >>>> I see this as killing two birds with >>>> one stone - getting us to the maven standard groupId moving forward >>>> and eliminating or at least making less likely the chance of users >>>> blowing up due to unintentional incompatible upgrades. >>> >>> Yes. And we can avoid the tedious relocation POMs, because it is no >>> relocation. >>> >>>> Regarding Tomcat, Mark or someone else can chime in to confirm, but >>>> my understanding is that tomcat builds and repackages dbcp from >>>> source using Ant and as long as we keep trunk sources as they are, >>>> tomcat will be able to build all versions. >>> >>> - Jörg >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
