commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <>
Subject Re: [IO] Next version of IO - should this be 2.0?
Date Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:28:53 GMT
On 2010-03-07 16:45, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Dennis Lundberg <> wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07 12:41, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:15 AM, sebb <> wrote:
>>>> The trunk pom.xml refers to 1.5-SNAPSHOT, but it seems to me that the
>>>> next release should be 2.0 rather 1.5, as IO now requires Java 1.5,
>>>> that requires a major version change.
>>> The plan was to release it as 2.0 - but IMO its not a requirement.
>>>> Does that make sense?
>>>> If so, then the maven id can also be fixed (see IO-125).
>>> -1 - see comments on JIRA ticket
>> We need to make this switch sooner rather than later. Currently every
>> release with a groupId och commons-* requires manual work from the
>> people who manage Maven central repository. We're just about the only
>> Apache project left not using a groupId of org.apache.*.
> I thought it was only when we did the first m2 release for a component
> and not for subsequent m2 releases for the group. Is that not the
> case?

It used to be that way, but it has changed. The repo maintainers want to
remove all manual stuff, including anything from Apache that is not
under groupId org.apache.*. We (the ASF) don't want anything pushed to
the central repository that is from under groupId other than org.apache.*.

It is only a matter of time before our current way (groupid commons-*)
will be shut down completely. If people have opinions about this I
suggest that you take them to repository@a.o for discussion.

>> We have previously said that we should make the switch to a groupId of
>> org.apache.commons when we do a major release. IMO we need to stick by
>> that decision.
> I don't remember that decision, do you have a link to the thread? Even
> if we did - this is going to cause problems for users who change their
> dependency to the latest - but also depend on other artifacts that
> have an older dependency on commons-io. Is this user pain worth it?

I found this thread, which touches the issue:

For such a change to be totally transparent we cannot rely on the
relocation feature of Maven, which has been discussed before. We would
have to change the package name, which I think was done in lang, from to org.apache.commons.io2.

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

Dennis Lundberg

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

View raw message