Hi, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr:
> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um > >> 14:06 Uhr: > >> > >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires > >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was > >>> done for 2.4? > >>> > >> > >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some > >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My > >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version > >> number, but that is a different discussion. > >> > >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I > >> don't see a problem with that. > > > > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is > > having multiple tags for the same release. > > > > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate > > tags; the current list is: > > > > 2.2/ > > 2.3/ > > 2.4/ > > 2.5/ > > IO_1_0/ > > IO_1_1/ > > IO_1_2/ > > IO_1_3/ > > IO_1_3_1/ > > commons-io-1.3.2/ > > commons-io-1.4/ > > commons-io-2.0/ > > commons-io-2.0.1/ > > commons-io-2.1/ > > commons-io-2.5/ > > > > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs] > > > > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem. > > > > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons. > > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for. > That's only true for SVN based components. But as I said, that is a different discussion :-) > > Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM > > So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location. > > If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that. > But we cannot/must not change history. > Okay, so what is your proposal? Roll back the commit and then vote on a new convention? Benedikt > > >> Benedikt > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16, <bimargul...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> >> Author: bimargulies > >>> >> Date: Fri May 6 12:16:39 2016 > >>> >> New Revision: 1742534 > >>> >> > >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev > >>> >> Log: > >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions? > >>> > > >>> > This is potentially confusing. > >>> > > >>> > I think it should have been discussed first. > >>> > > >>> >> Added: > >>> >> commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/ > >>> >> - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/ > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > 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 > >
