I tend agree that yes it will be annoying but certainly you can't claim you weren't informed. With modern IDE's refactoring isn't a huge issue in my opinion.
I could go either way, but if we say the group id changes, then we need to try to prevent classpath conflicts as Maven will see the new group:artifact as a totally new thing (which actually seems to be the intent and a good thing). It's not simply a case of updating your poms to use the new group, you would have to ensure none of your transitive dependencies are using the old group as well and exclude them. The only other alternative is back to the original idea of denoting incubator in the version, but this could be troublesome as well. -----Original Message----- From: Julius Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 5:43 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: maven repository A general package renaming is going to be the least of your worries if you're depending on lots of young immature jar files (and automatically downloading newer versions)! Many popular jars have broken binary reverse-compatibility at some point (httpclient, jfreechart, junit to name three). To reply to Alan Cabrera, I don't think it's crazy. I think it's more crazy to depend on incubator jars and *not* expect some turbulence of this kind! I think the package renaming idea is pretty slick, and appears to accomplish both of the goals James Carman identified, while tolerating side-by-side presence of a pre-graduated and post-graduated incubator jars in the classpath. If you really don't want binary breakage, don't upgrade your jar. On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, let's define the goals here: > > 1. The ASF would like folks who want to use incubating projects to do > so knowingly somehow. This is somewhat of a CYA tactic so that people > are acknowledging "yes, I understand this is not an 'official' ASF > project, but I'd like to use it anyway." > 2. Incubating projects would like to be able to get releases in front > of people so that they can build their community. > yours, Julius On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:23 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Janne Jalkanen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As an end user, I would _hate_ to have to change all of my code to >>> reference a totally new package structure after the podling graduates. >>> That's a major pain... >> >> With JSPWiki we have plenty of plugins and other extensions donated by >> people over the years. Every binary break means that we obsolete most of >> this stuff (unless we can take the responsibility of recompiling >> everything). Every binary break means that we will have to answer questions >> from people running obsolete software because they can't afford the cost of >> the upgrade because they have money invested in the customizations. >> >> So it's not only the pain of upgrading the package definitions; changing >> packages issues a damaging blow to the ecosystem nurtured in the incubator. >> Sometimes the impact can be minimal; sometimes it could be rather bad. > -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
