commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: [IO] Next version of IO - should this be 2.0?
Date Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:41:02 GMT
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Dennis Lundberg <> wrote:
> 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.

I'm sorry but having the build-tool/repository force a package rename is nuts.


>> Niall
>>>> Niall

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

View raw message