On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the idea of having a separate, releasable "child" of some > kind that can break compatibility with its parent and earlier > versions of itself is a good one. The setup I have described above > is probably not the best, but we should be able to figure out how to > do it and communicate what it means to users. Letting the child > keep living with the parent makes me nervous. I know it may be > easier to just make a room in the basement, but then you have to > soundproof the floors, etc.
If your child is something that you frequently clone back into your brain, then sure. It's more like being able to backup and merge yourself [common scifi subject nowadays]. You'll want to kick off versions to experiment on something risky and then bring back the value from its results. > Better to just spring for another artifactId ;) As long as they end up in the same release. Sounds painful build-wise. I guess I get to do the multi-pom thing *memories rear in back of head*. Looks like JCI and VFS do this, so I'll figure out how they do things build-wise. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
