On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/7/11 1:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 7 April 2011 21:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
I think the idea of having a separate, releasable "child" of some
kind that can break compatibility
On 4/7/11 1:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 21:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> I think the idea of having a separate, releasable "child" of some
>>> kind that can break compatibility with its parent and earlier
>>> versions of itself is a g
On 7 April 2011 21:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>> I think the idea of having a separate, releasable "child" of some
>> kind that can break compatibility with its parent and earlier
>> versions of itself is a good one. The setup I have describ
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> I think the idea of having a separate, releasable "child" of some
> kind that can break compatibility with its parent and earlier
> versions of itself is a good one. The setup I have described above
> is probably not the best, but we should
On 4/7/11 10:00 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 16:42, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
makes it a separate
On 7 April 2011 16:42, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
>>> makes it a separate project/branch etc. Even if we mess aro
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
>> makes it a separate project/branch etc. Even if we mess around in
>> Maven to produce multiple jars, we're still
It's worthless unless we release it. :(
A similar example is that I don't see why we can't have lang4 code
appearing in the lang3 jar; and I don't see why we would have to be
backwards compat for the lang4 code while on the lang3 branch.
I agree it's novel, but lang is too core to other projects
I'd agree with an alpha area, but I don't agree with releasing it.
[lang] is too core to other projects to be doing things like that IMO.
Stephen
On 7 April 2011 07:35, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
>
> Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add a
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
> makes it a separate project/branch etc. Even if we mess around in
> Maven to produce multiple jars, we're still create two separate
> artifacts simply to deal with any tooli
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:07 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 07:35, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
>>
>> Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
>>
>> org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
>>
>> It's specifically a location of code
On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:36, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
>
> Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
>
> org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
>
> It's specifically a location of code that is:
>
> a) Not linked to a version. When we
On 7 April 2011 07:35, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
>
> Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
>
> org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
>
> It's specifically a location of code that is:
>
> a) Not linked to a version. When we mov
- "Henri Yandell" a écrit :
> I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
>
> Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
>
> org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
>
> It's specifically a location of code that is:
>
> a) Not linked to a version. When we move to
I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
It's specifically a location of code that is:
a) Not linked to a version. When we move to 4.0 it does not change.
b) Does not offer backward
15 matches
Mail list logo
