On 11/7/10 8:19 PM, James Carman wrote:
So you think that if there is no API break, then you don't bump major
version numbers? So what about vfs 2.0? Would you vote against it?
I would not -1 the release, but I would encourage the RM to consider
making it 1.x if there are no compat breaks.
Phil
On Nov 7, 2010 7:18 PM, "Phil Steitz"<phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/7/10 7:03 PM, sebb wrote:
On 7 November 2010 23:56, James Carman<ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
It's not a new subproject. It's just a new version of the same
subproject. Trust me, I know about how the maven artifactId/package
name/classpath stuff works. I've had this discussion many times
before on this list. VFS is releasing its 2.0 release right now. If
you want to make binary incompatible changes, it has to bump its major
version number to 3 (along with artifactId/package change).
Agreed.
This is
why I've argued that VFS 2.0 should actually be 1.1, so that we don't
introduce an inconsistency. The 2.x stuff should be in a vfs2
package, per our naming conventions. In my opinion, it's not enough
AFAIK, we have not agreed that package name suffix == major version
number.
I used to be among those resisting this, but James' admirable
persistence has won me over :) For the components that are likely to
have any possibility of needing to appear twice on the classpath of
an application at least, I think the following convention makes sense:
Major version bump<-> compatibility break in API<-> change package
name<-> change maven artifactId
Bumping required JDK does not by itself force a compat break. I
guess it is possible that so much can be accomplished without any
breaks that a major version bump is warranted in some cases; but I
have never seen that happen. So I am +1 on trying to adhere to this
convention or at least explaining why not (in [math] for example we
perhaps lamely argue that classpath multiplicity is not likely).
Phil
different to merit a 2.0 release. Not enough has been done.
Especially when you consider the version numbering madness that this
is going to cause.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
It will be a new sub-project. commons-vfs-2.<x> and commons-vfs2-1.0
should be able to co-exist on the same classpath.
For maven reasons, it is not desirable to have<artifactId> shift its
internal packages (because Maven does not understand that 2.0 and 3.0
are not compatible) and commons-vfs and commons-vfs2 should not use
use the same packages.
So commons-vfs will continue to use org.apache.commons.vfs.* and
commons-vfs2 will use org.apache.commons.vfs2.*
And it must be possible to have both versions on the classpath without
clashing.
-h
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 13:45, James Carman<ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
wrote:
If we release vfs2 and then we make changes that make it binary
incompatible, then we have to go to 3 to do a new release. Am I
missing something?
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
No, that would be a vfs2. With new package names and everything. It
would not be intended to be drop in compatible.
-h
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:53, James Carman<ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
wrote:
Make sure you stay compatible or it'll have to go to 3.0
On Nov 7, 2010 11:44 AM, "Gary Gregory"<ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com
wrote:
On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:37, "Henning Schmiedehausen"<
henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
I would suggest that we (and in fact I started hacking around with
this) release a vfs2 which is Java6+ only and fully generified.
That's fine with me and my current work projects but I like a more
iterative process where we can generify the code on java 5 for a
2.1. Then
we can do a java 6 release.
Gary
-h
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 08:22, Gary Gregory<
ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
wrote:
On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:45, "sebb"<seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7 November 2010 02:17, Gary Gregory<
ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:
henn...@schmiedehausen.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 19:03
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
+1
- I don't think that "has warnings" is a problem
- If deprecated APIs are still around, we can always remove
them
later.
Yes, release early, release often.
I would encourage work to proceed immediately to implement
this,
generics, and whatever Java 5 changes we can take advantage of.
I've already done the main annotations (@Override and
@Deprecation)
I've started looking at generics.
There's rather a lot of changes to fix all the Java 1.5
warnings, so
it will probably have to be done in stages, but I can start
committing
soon
Great news. It would be nice to release early release often a la
XP with
a 2.1 themed release 'java 5 optimized'
Gary
Gary
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 13:12, Ralph Goers<
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to
1.5 and
the
requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test
file
for
LargeTarTestCase has been added to the test-data directory,
greatly
improving
the build time. Many of the messages from the test cases have
been
removed.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
Ralph
tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/vfs/tags/commons-vfs-
project-2.0/ (revision 1031749)
site: http://people.apache.org/~rgoers/commons-vfs/index.html
The following artifacts have been staged to the Apache Nexus
Staging
repository org.apache.commons-038 (u:rgoers, a:38.101.196.246)
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-038/
commons-vfs-examples-2.0.jar
commons-vfs-examples-2.0.pom
commons-vfs-examples-2.0-javadoc.jar
commons-vfs-examples-2.0-sources.jar
commons-vfs-examples-2.0.jar.asc
commons-vfs-examples-2.0-sources.jar.asc
commons-vfs-examples-2.0.pom.asc
commons-vfs-examples-2.0-javadoc.jar.asc
commons-vfs-2.0-tests.jar
commons-vfs-2.0-test-sources.jar.asc
commons-vfs-2.0-sources.jar.asc
commons-vfs-2.0.jar
commons-vfs-2.0.pom
commons-vfs-2.0-test-sources.jar
commons-vfs-2.0-javadoc.jar
commons-vfs-2.0-javadoc.jar.asc
commons-vfs-2.0-tests.jar.asc
commons-vfs-2.0.pom.asc
commons-vfs-2.0-sources.jar
commons-vfs-2.0.jar.asc
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-tests.jar.asc
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-sources.jar
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-tests.jar
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-test-sources.jar.asc
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-sources.jar.asc
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0.jar.asc
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-test-sources.jar
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-javadoc.jar
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0.pom
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0.jar
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0-javadoc.jar.asc
commons-vfs-sandbox-2.0.pom.asc
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-src.zip
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0.pom
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-src.tar.gz.asc
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-src.tar.gz
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-bin.zip
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-bin.zip.asc
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-bin.tar.gz
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-src.zip.asc
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0-bin.tar.gz.asc
commons-vfs-distribution-2.0.pom.asc
commons-vfs-project-2.0-site.xml.asc
commons-vfs-project-2.0.pom
commons-vfs-project-2.0-site.xml
commons-vfs-project-2.0.pom.asc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
