On 10/18/14 2:03 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > You are not including duplicate artifacts, they are totally distinct.
I think Romain's point is that classes that are not changed in the different versions are duplicated. It's interesting that from Romain's standpoint, the single jar, mass package rename strategy we have taken is "impractical," but what seems reasonable to him - split changed APIs into new jars - seems impractical to us. So either he ends up repackaging (or distributing a larger distribution), or we do. This is probably not a popular view here, but I think the moral of the story is we should try as much as possible to avoid backward-incompatible change in already released APIs - i.e., favor deprecate and replace. That at least makes the splitting possible. From painful experience in [math], however, I know this is sometimes not possible - i.e., there is such a thing as broken APIs - bugs that can't be resolved without incompatible API change. And in other cases [pool], [dbcp], there really is no "duplication" as the v2's are completely different implementations. Phil > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
