> Nial wrote: >> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and >> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that >> starting point: >> >> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr >> >> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of >> that debate ended up about maven groupIds: >> >> http://markmail.org/message/flsmdalzs6tjv3va >> >> It is arbitrary though - my preference is for 2.0 since it makes it >> easy to remember which releases were for JDK 1.3 and which for JDK >> 1.5. Also it seems like moving to JDK 1.5 warrants more of a version >> change than +0.1
James Carman wrote: > So, call it 1.5 Hehehe. Seriously, we have switched the minimal JDK requirement often between minor versions (most prominent case is DBCP) and kept Maven G:A as long as it is binary compatible. Comparing the gap from lang 2.x to lang 3.x, it looks strange to me switching for io from 1.x to 2.0. What would be your intention as a normal user with this versioning? Would you use it as drop in replacement? - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
