On 7 April 2011 21:08, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ;)
Not sure that's necessary? > 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. Commons NET creates 3 binary jars: - main - ftp + dependencies - examples and does not need a separate module, but there may be advantages to having a separate module. > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
