commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [CLI] two different versions of commons-cli-1.0.jar?
Date Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:11:00 GMT
we (torsten, stefan, peter and others) talked about this at apachecon.
we really need to remove the (unofficial snapshot) commons-cli-1.0.jar
from the java-repository. i plan to do this soon. i'll post a summary to
repo and pmc before acting. i will also prepare some kind of
announcement and post it widely.

this is going to cause difficulties for users. as discussed previously,
they will have been building and using a snapshot rather than the
correct release. their builds may well be broken. i would prefer to have
some kind of plan in place to try to reduce the damage.

it would probably be easier to work out a plan by IRC (if people are
available) than continue this long email exchange. i'm not sure where
the maven folks hang out these days so hopefully brett will be able to
jump in with a suggested venue and time. 

- robert

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 10:30 +0100,
> IMO there are two separate issues here which are in danger of becoming a
> little confused: what needs to be done about the jar in the apache java
> repository and what can be done to limit the impact of the problem on
> users of maven.
> the jar in the repository is not an official release and must be removed.
> the only reason this hasn't been done yet is that we need to understand
> the impact that this would have on users (which i think this thead has
> covered) and the best way to limit the impact on users of ibiblio and
> maven.
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Simon Kitching <> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 09:43 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Thorsten and Robert explained the situation to me during the BOF
> >>> yesterday, and I hope I have it right.  Sorry I haven't followed it
> >>> that closely before.
> >>>
> >>> Is it true that the jar on ibiblio has never been an official
> >>> release?
> >>
> >> No, it was not a release. It's a snapshot from about 12 months after
> >> 1.0 was released.
> >>
> >>> If so, there is no point in renaming it, remove it.
> >>
> >> If it had been up for just a week or so, I would agree. However it's
> >> been available for well over a year. That means there is a whole lot
> >> of code out there that may have been built against it, run through
> >> the corporate QA procedure then shipped as an official product to
> >> customers.  Deleting all trace of it could make thinks awkward for
> >> people....
> >
> > Simon, I do understand all that.  But legally we only have two
> > options.  Make it an official release by following our own procedures,
> > which does require to make it ASL 2.0 - or remove it.  There is no
> > other option.
> the jar has the wrong name and is in the wrong place.
> however, i have no reason not to trust the reliability of the jar and so i
> see no problem in uploading a copy to an appropriate place with an
> appropriate name. AIUI, this means ibiblio.
> >> Person A builds some code depending on 1.0. They strike a bug, and
> >> ask person B to look into it.
> >
> > If A uses the jar from the local repo, nothing we do on the server is
> > going to change that.  If we rename the jar, person A will still use
> > the bad version named 1.0 from the local repo.
> this is indeed a bad situation. however, there is flexibility about the
> contents of the ibiblio repository. AIUI the maven team have dealt with
> similar situations before and i think the best thing would be to make sure
> the jar is preserved locally and let brett handle the maven issues.
> - robert
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message