Henning, it isn't as simple as you believe. See, for example, this thread:
http://marc.info/?t=128256609800002&r=1&w=2 The conclusion was, as I read it at the time, that you should expect that users still have to edit their respective pom files. Which is a blocker, IMO. Apart from that, what do we gain? Noone has actual problems with the current groupId. It's simply that people don't like it. Jochen On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen <henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > I don't get it. Sorry. :-) > > So maven1 kind of added ad-hoc groups. They chose to use the same as > the artifactId as the groupId when they constituted that back in the > maven1 days. That turned out to be suboptimal. But some artifacts that > were in the maven1 tree (most of commons) ended up in the commons-* > locations. > > Pretty much everyone agrees that this was a mistake and these > artifacts should have been put into org.apache.commons. However, they > were not. Why should be stay locked into these mistakes forever? > > Maven offers a relocation mechanism. So we use it and put the new > releases into the more sane location which is > org.apache.commons:commons-vfs. Life goes on afterwards. Relocation > helps people to transition. > > I love backwards compatibility as the next guy, but we do have to move > on at some point. JDK 1.3 and Maven 1 are gone for five+ years now. > Everyone who is still using them will not upgrade anyway. Not > leveraging what exists in 2010 seems to wrong to me. Let's acknowledge > mistakes of the past and move on. > > +1 to org.apache.commons:* for all new releases. +1 to "JDK5+ (even > though I would prefer JDK6+) for all new releases. > > -h > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 18:48, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen >> <henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: >>> This is an old, buggy location and it should be cleaned up over time. >>> Being locked into the mistakes of the past because some tool can not >>> understand it, doesn't seem to be reasonable to me. >>> >> >> The cat's sort of out of the bag now. It pisses people (well at least >> it does me) off when you start moving stuff around on them. All of a >> sudden, you start seeing "blah blah moved to blah blah" in your build >> output. VFS apparently wasn't a Maven 2 project at the time it was >> released. The source distribution doesn't contain a pom.xml file. >> I'm more worried about how the tag is out of sync with the "official" >> released source. That's not good. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > > -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
