On 10/16/10 3:57 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:21, "Phil Steitz"<phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/16/10 12:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote:
Consistency is good, but deciding something based purely on
*consistency* rather than the merits of the situation is mindless.
Trying to keep things consistent is being mindful of the user's needs.
The consistency is part of the situation. When you go to pool
version 3, you'll have:
1.x - commons-pool:common-pool with package org.apache.commons.pool
2.x - org.apache.commons:commons-pool with package org.apache.commons.pool2
3.x - org.apache.commons:commons-pool3 with package org.apache.commons-pool3
From what Dennis says above, it is not obvious to me that the artifactId
change for v 3 will be necessary - i.e., just bumping the version number will
allow multiples to be on the classpath at the same time. Can someone answer
this question definitively? If it will be necessary to move to pool3 later,
then I agree with James that we may as well do it now.
Makes lots of sense to the users.
Again, it comes down to "you don't work on this project so stay out of
its damn business" and "the release manager is doing the work so they
can do whatever the hell they want." So, why don't we just do what
Incubator does and have a mini-PMC for each subproject since you don't
want other members of the Commons PMC butting their noses into a
project they don't actively participate in?
I don't think that is what Niall meant and its certainly not how I see things.
A great strength of our community is that we *welcome* input for one another as
we make decisions at the component level. We all benefit from that. The tricky
bit is to agree on what we standardize across components. We have a long
tradition of letting component communities and those who step up to RM releases
make a lot of decisions independently. That does not mean that we shouldn't
listen to feedback from the community or provide it when we have something to
say. Nor does it mean that we are not *all* responsible for *all* of our
components. Sometimes we disagree and sometimes it takes a while to get to
consensus, but IMO we are *much* better off managing Commons as one community
Yes! To me that's what the commons umbrella should provide.
Let's reuse the lang3 experience for pool2. And move on IMO.
+1
Sorry I did not understand what was going on at first. I am +1 for
doing all three changes:
commons-pool -> org.apache.commons
commons-pool -> commons-pool2
org.apache.commons.pool -> org.apache.commons.pool2
Thanks!
Phil
At this point, I really don't care what you guys do. In the grand
scheme of things, it has absolutely zero impact on me what you do with
this code. I'm tired of arguing about this stuff all the time.
I am sorry you feel like that atm.
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
