On 17 December 2011 13:09, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 2011, at 5:58, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 17 December 2011 06:05, Damjan Jovanovic <damjan....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:54 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 16 December 2011 20:49, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:43 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16 December 2011 17:27, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> AH yes, that's because Sanselan came from the Incubator and hasn't >>>>>>>> been updated yet :P >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes - that's good (as it happens). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The previous (incubator) Maven release was under the groupId >>>>>>> org.apache.sanselan, and the package was also o.a.sanselan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The package name has been changed already, so we can change the Maven >>>>>>> groupId to o.a.commons, which will automatically give Nexus access. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I see "package org.apache.sanselan" all over in >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/sanselan/trunk >>>>>> >>>>>> Do I have the right project checked out? >>>>> >>>>> Oops! Yes, you do. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, got that wrong - I thought I had checked the current package. >>>>> >>>>> In which case, we either need to >>>>> * keep the package name & make another release under the old Maven >>>> coords, >>>>> or >>>>> * change the package to o.a.c and make a release under Maven o.a.c. >>>>> >>>> >>>> IMO "change the package to o.a.c", should be done now. >>>> >>>> I'll could it unless you or anyone gets to it first, or makes other kinds >>>> of noises. >>>> >>>> >>> If a 1.0 release is necessary, I'd like to make other changes too before >>> that. >> >> If the package name is changed to o.a.commons, the > > Note that there are other package name oddities like mixed case > package names which should be all lower case.
+1 to fixing those - it's obvious what the proper solution is there. The tricky bit is getting the API correct ... or at least sufficiently correct that a further break in binary compat. is very unlikely. > Gary > >> Commons versioning >> guidelines require a major version bump. >> Probably a good idea anyway to release as 1.0 to show that the >> incubation stage is finally over. >> >> The package name change means there's no need to keep binary >> compatibility - users will have to edit and recompile anyway. >> But ideally fix all broken bits of the API at once to avoid having to >> change the package name again in the future. >> >>> As for the Java 1.5 update, that would make a Java ME port harder to do, >>> but I'd rather have an Android port anyway. >>> >>> Damjan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
