On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Niall,
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Niall,
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to
Hi Niall,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to
> give time for feedback.
>
> The distro is her
On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:35, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
>>> wrote:
There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>
On Oct 6, 2010, at 5:49, "Niall Pemberton"
mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible
mailto:joerg.schai...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Nial wrote:
The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
hence the major version changed - I guess i
Niall, if the rules allow a major version bump, then you are free to
do it. However, the major version bump is misleading to me and I
wouldn't choose it if I was RM.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010
On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Niall,
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> No - if/when IO breaks binary compatibility, then IMO there will be a
> package name change and major version. I'll sort out JIRA if/when this
> release is out
>
So, we have:
Version 1.x: org.apache.commons.io
Version 2.x: org.apache.c
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Let's say IO went out as 2.0 and it was binary compatible. There are
> enhancements planned for for 2.x that would break compatibility. Is
> that still okay?
No - if/when IO breaks binary compatibility, then IMO there will be a
package name c
Let's say IO went out as 2.0 and it was binary compatible. There are
enhancements planned for for 2.x that would break compatibility. Is
that still okay? I find it odd we would strive for 2.0 to be binary
compatible, but allow 2.x not to be.
Paul
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Jörg Schaible wr
Hi guys,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) t
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> Commons is a federation. IMO Its not a one-size-fits all with a set of
> rules to make all components adhere to. We do different things on
> different projects and generally leave decisions up to the developers
> on that component.
>
If
On 6 October 2010 16:20, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>>
>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
>> think it should be 2.0. So far there are fi
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>>
>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
>> think it should be 2.0. So far there
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
> think it should be 2.0. So far there are five who think 1.5 (Jörg,
> James, Michael, Paul & Matt)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:
>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
>> that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
>> compatibility. Like with Lang
On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
> that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
> compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release
> would be a major
I tend to agree that 2.0 should allow backwards incompatible changes.
If it is simply adding generics and cleaning up code, it deserves a
1.5 version number. That's how I see it anyway.
Paul
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> As a user (and occasional contributo
Hey All,
As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release
would be a major change (dropping backwards compatibility, removing
deprecated co
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Nial wrote:
>>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>>> starting point:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>>>
>>>
> Nial wrote:
>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>> starting point:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>>
>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most
On 6 October 2010 11:49, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
> starting point:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>
> Sebb did bring this up earlier thi
So, call it 1.5
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Niall,
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes i
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to c
Hi Niall,
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to
> give time for feedback.
>
> The distro is her
I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to
give time for feedback.
The distro is here:
http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-
27 matches
Mail list logo
