On 9 May 2016 at 07:43, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > 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?
Although we don't generally allow tags to be deleted, I think it would be OK here. The log message should make it clear what the 'real' tag is called. A convention needs discussion before a vote. > 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
