commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: sanctioning commons-logging version "99.0-does-not-exist"
Date Fri, 15 May 2009 02:30:42 GMT
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Ceki Gulcu <ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
> Hi Ralph and co,
>
> The issue has been raised on the Maven list about 5 times, and if I
> remember correctly, it was raised by yourself once or twice. However,
> I am not aware of any progress on the issue.
>
> Anyway, my request involves allowing commons-logging v99 to be
> published on ibiblio. This needs to be done once.

Why ibiblio and not their own repository?

> Users who wish to exclude commons-logging would be doing so by
> explicitly including version 99 in their pom.xml file.

As long as we don't make a 100 right?

With the negative being that anyone who might use 'LATEST' (not that I
knew that was a Maven feature... must keep up) is going to find they
can't use commons-logging anymore because they're get a duff one?

Dumb question time - why do the version numbers have to increase? I'm
not getting why 0.0 would fail, but if it does then it sounds like it
would be bad for a later commons-logging release. Now if we're
prepared to say there won't be another 1.1.x sure - but presumably we
(and everyone) wants room for a 1.1.2 if some serious bug shows up?

> It would be
> discouraged in red and bold print against declaring version 99 in
> libraries. Only end users, or application builders, would be "allowed"
> to declare version 99.

Where is it printed?
How would people not be allowed?

> While there is some small danger in some component declaring version
> 99 in their pom.xml and this preventing the inclusion of
> commons-logging proper, any library developer with half-a-brain would
> refrain from doing that.
>
> Thus, the idea is to offer some additional comfort for those users
> wishing to exclude commons-logging. Admittedly, there is no gain for
> the Apache Commons community.

We got into this mess because there wasn't a solution and we needed
something for Commons libraries. Personally I think there is gain in
gently end of lifeing Commons Logging in favour of a focused logging
project.

What most of my confused email at getting at is not regarding gain but
loss - what do we lose by doing this. The ability to do another
release? I'm not understanding the negative.

> Thank you for taking my request into consideration.

Related subject.

Does sfl4j also need to release a v99? I'm very susceptible to getting
off of commons-logging and onto sfl4j (and will probably vote +1 on
that in Commons), but are we just exchanging one dependency pain for
another, or is there a way the issue can be solved in the long term?

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message