On 5 November 2010 20:00, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: >> >> Simply bumping the JDK requirement is enough to go from 1.x to 2.x IMO. >> > > Again, I'm going to harp on the consistency factor. If we go to 2.0 > without changing artifactId and package, then future releases will be > inconsistent. See other threads about this discussion, as I do not > wish to re-hash it yet again. For this release, since it's binary > compatible, we can leave it at 1.1 to avoid introducing an > inconsistency. Others have argued that merely bumping JDK versions > isn't necessarily a reason to go to a new major version.
I just don't think the need for consistency has been agreed. I suggest you create a Wiki with the arguments so far (as I have started for Maven groupId) +1 to using 2.0 for this release, without requiring package or groupId changes. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
