On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > > That's not the issue. We want to avoid unresolvable incompatibilities in > transitive dependencies. Our components are used by many projects, an > incompatibility could render impossible the use of two components > together, and you are stuck until the components are updated to use the > same version of the common dependency. > > ASM and BouncyCastle are two examples of widely used projects that don't > care at all about the compatibilities, and this is causing pain and > wasting time to a lot of smart people. >
I think you misunderstand my intent. We have left out features before (ones that folks blogged about and said they liked) because a user could do something stupid with it. What you're talking about is "jar hell" and we have already addressed that with our naming convention for major release bumps (changing artifactId and package name). I'm cool with that idea and I think it's a pretty good approach. I don't see anyone else doing it, which is interesting. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
