Hi Emmanuel,
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I noticed that the artifactId changed to
> commons-configuration2 on the
> 2.x branch. Is it necessary to change it? Couldn't we keep
> commons-configuration since the groupId has already changed to
> org.apache.commons?
aside from all args in the discussion,
simon a écrit :
There is a slow process of migrating commons libraries from the old
style of groupId to a proper groupId of org.apache.commons. This
migration is also happening for projects where no incompatible changes
are being made, ie is just a "namespace cleanup".
I understand that the gr
On 2/17/08, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 10:34 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > James Carman a écrit :
> > > Well, I'd like to see commons have some consistency to it. I would
> > > rather every component within commons follow the same naming
> > > conventions w.r.t.
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 10:34 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> James Carman a écrit :
> > Well, I'd like to see commons have some consistency to it. I would
> > rather every component within commons follow the same naming
> > conventions w.r.t. packages and I guess now artifactIds (I didn't
> > reali
James Carman a écrit :
Well, I'd like to see commons have some consistency to it. I would
rather every component within commons follow the same naming
conventions w.r.t. packages and I guess now artifactIds (I didn't
realize that was an issue within maven until I did my little test
tonight). Ma
Well, I'd like to see commons have some consistency to it. I would
rather every component within commons follow the same naming
conventions w.r.t. packages and I guess now artifactIds (I didn't
realize that was an issue within maven until I did my little test
tonight). Maybe I'm just too much of
James Carman a écrit :
I understand what you mean (that changing it isn't really necessary
right now), but maybe we should try to be consistent. If we're going
to have to start changing the artifactId going forward (since we won't
be changing the groupId) anyway, then maybe we should just go ah
On 2/16/08, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carman a écrit :
> > I just tried a test by putting in commons-collections 3.1 and 3.2 as
> > dependencies. When I listed the dependencies (using the maven
> > plugin), I only see 3.2. So, I guess we have to change the artifact
> > id
James Carman a écrit :
I just tried a test by putting in commons-collections 3.1 and 3.2 as
dependencies. When I listed the dependencies (using the maven
plugin), I only see 3.2. So, I guess we have to change the artifact
id too.
That's slightly different since both artifacts are in the same
I didn't realize that we were changing the artifact ids when we change
the package name. I guess we're doing that because Maven2 will try to
use the latest version of a library if multiple exist as dependencies?
I just tried a test by putting in commons-collections 3.1 and 3.2 as
dependencies. W
10 matches
Mail list logo
