commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Major versions require package name change
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:06:26 GMT
I think the point is that we don't think this should be mandated and
up to the individual project teams to decide what they want to do.  I
would agree that this option should be standardized (appending the
major release version number to the package name) so that folks know
what's going on if it does happen.  Requiring every project to do so
seems a bit heavy-handed, though.  If this were a requirement for
every major release, then I think folks would be hesitant to do a
major release.

On 10/30/06, Torsten Curdt <> wrote:
> > There are clearly good reasons / circumstances to take the approach
> > you suggest, but it is a user unfriendly approach. As a user I like to
> > try out new versions by dropping in a new jar - before taking the
> > decision to upgrade. This approach rules that out and it wouldn't
> > surprise me if users started to see commons as irrelevant because of
> > "upgrade hell" if we take this route too often.
> Guys, you cannot always just "drop in a new jar". Come on!
> A similar conversation that could have happened a couple of years ago...
> you: "No, I don't like this 3.5" floppy drives. They don't fit my 5 1/4" disks!"
> me: "Well, it's new, it's different has more capacity!"
> you: "Well, I don't care ...I used to be able to use them. I don't
> want the new disks ...but the capacity would be great. I just want to
> have that."
> me: "Just keep using you old drive then ...but you would have to stick
> with the old capacity"
> you: "No, now I want the bigger capacity!!"
> me: "Then you will have to copy over the data from the old disks to
> some new ones"
> you: "Are you kidding? That's too much work! I used to just stick them
> in there and they just worked fine! If it's that much work to use this
> new fancy drives - no one will use this crap"
> me: *sigh*
> *silence*
> (you = multiple people arguing in this thread not to change the package name)
> (me = the other people arguing in this thread who think it would
> probably make sense)
> (silence = the rest of the gang ;-) )
> Keep in mind you can still use the "drop in upgrade" for minor
> releases. If there is a major release - there is a good reason for it!
> If this "drop in" would have been possible it would have been a minor
> release. So how often would you thinks this will happen? And...
> Upgrading a package name change is easily manageable by the average
> user ...dependency hell is not.
> So I think using this scheme would make things quite transparent and
> HELP the users.
> cheers
> --
> Torsten
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message