Niall, if the rules allow a major version bump, then you are free to do it. However, the major version bump is misleading to me and I wouldn't choose it if I was RM.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Hi Niall, >>> >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> >>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the >>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll >>>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to >>>> give time for feedback. >>>> >>>> The distro is here: >>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/ >>>> >>>> Release Notes: >>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt >>>> >>>> Site: >>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/ >>>> >>>> Maven Stuff: >>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/maven/ >>>> >>>> Some Notes: >>>> >>>> * There is one error on the clirr report - which is a false positive >>>> (a generic method that is erased) >>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/clirr-report.html >>>> * Links to the JavaDoc versions on the site don't work (they will when >>>> its deployed to the right location) >>> >>> thanks for all the work you put into this release. I had not the time to >>> look at the new stuff in detail, but looking at the release notes, I wonder >>> about the version: >>> >>> 1/ requires now Java 5 instead of 1.3 >>> 2/ is binary compatible with 1.4 >>> 3/ does not remove deprecated stuff >>> 4/ is using the same package name >>> 5/ is using the old Maven groupId >>> 6/ adds a lot new stuff >>> 7/ deprecates some stuff >>> 8/ contains bug fixes >>> >>> IMHO we started with 2.0 because we were not sure if topic 2/ and 3/ can be >>> ensured for 1/ and it was not a primary goal. However, this turned out fine >>> and 1/ has been never forcing a major version change in general. So, is >>> there any other reason to call this release 2.0 instead of 1.5? >> >> 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 >> > +1, a major jre req change warrants a +1.0 to the version. > > Gary > >> Niall >> >>> Cheers, >>> 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
