commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <craig...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 'End of Life' policy in Jakarta; was Re: [VOTE] JCL dependency versions
Date Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:13:28 GMT
On 11/1/06, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 11:59 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > Speaking of cross-commons, the JCL deps are all over the place. Which
> > is probably OK for now, since most variants are point releases (1.0,
> > 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 being popular ATM).
> >
> > Since JCL is the bottom rung of the ladder, we should do our bit and
> > move as one (i.e. if a component wants to up the JCL version, it
> > should be an [all] discussion, and all components should update trunk
> > such that their next RC matches up). We could restrict this to minor
> > or major release updates, but I don't see any harm in keeping the JCL
> > point release consistent as well.
> >
> > [  ] +1 Sounds reasonable
> > [  ]  0
> > [  ] -1 Sounds unreasonable
> >
> > -Rahul
> >
>
> Rahul,
>
> Allow me to look at the situation from a different angle. I think what
> is definitely missing is a more formal and a clearly articulated product
> 'end of life' policy across all Jakarta.
>
> HttpClient, for instance, still mandates JCL 1.0.3 only, even though we
> recommend JCL 1.1 be used in production. Same goes for Commons Codec:
> 1.3 is preferred but only 1.2 is required, since there is no reason why
> HttpClient would not work with Codec 1.2. This way the project.xml
> captures an important bit of information: the oldest / least supported
> version of each individual project dependency. I would not want JCL
> level requirement be bumped up to 1.1 for no reason, as HttpClient works
> perfectly well with 1.0.3 or above.
>
> Having said all that I personally will have no issue of what so ever to
> put JCL 1.1 as a requirement for HttpClient 3.x the very same moment JCL
> 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 are declared 'end of life / support' by JCL
> maintainers.
>
> Take it for what it is worth.


An approach that takes Oleg's concerns into account would be to use version
number ranges, rather than just a particular version number.  Essentially,
you are stating "I have tested with everything from version X to version
Y".  You can also leave the high end open ended if you trust your downstream
dependencies not to break you with later versions :-).


Oleg


Craig

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message