On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
You would have to change your pom to select version 2.0 or 1.1 anyway, so what if they have to edit one more line to fix the groupId? > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
