Le 24/11/2010 17:09, Dietmar Wolz a écrit : > > >> 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
It's not always a matter of time. Change may be impossible due to either project management rules, long certification processes before accepting a new version of a subcomponent, or simply because source code is not available. > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
