>The name change is not for maintaining several versions in parallel. It >is to allow projects to have parts depending on the old (unmaintained) >version and new (maintained) version to compile and let them go back in >sync progressively. It is exactly the same process than the change in >2.2 for the user exceptions: we know there WILL be a transition period >for some projects and we help them during this transition.
Today I did the version update from 2.1 to the current trunk for my GTOC5 trajectory optimization framework which uses CM and Orekit. There were a lot of changes necessary but I managed to do them in about two hours. The question is: Are there projects using CM where the transition time is large enough to justify the usage of two different versions of CM at the same time? I am usually working in an OSGI-context where in principal such situations are supported. But we never use it for direct project dependencies but only for indirect ones - for instance if we depend on two third party libraries which depend on two different versions of a third one. And if I have to support a complex dependency graph - why not using OSGI? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
