commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:36:15 GMT

On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote:

> Hey All,
> 
> As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
> that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
> compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release
> would be a major change (dropping backwards compatibility, removing
> deprecated code, using incompatible 1.5 features, etc.). The new
> refinements sound more like an extension to the 1.4 release to me, so
> 1.5 makes more sense.
> 
> Will there be a point in the future where IO will be removing
> deprecated code and dropping backwards compatibility? If so, what
> release of IO will that be? That sounds more like a 2.0 release to me,
> but that's my opinion.
> 

I'm personally leaning toward 1.5 as well.  The bugfix along the 1.3 compatible line point
is a red herring as the hypothetical fixes would be made against 1.4.x.

$0.02,
Matt

> -Michael
> 
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Nial wrote:
>>>>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>>>>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>>>>> starting point:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of
>>>>> that debate ended up about maven groupIds:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/flsmdalzs6tjv3va
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is arbitrary though - my preference is for 2.0 since it makes it
>>>>> easy to remember which releases were for JDK 1.3 and which for JDK
>>>>> 1.5. Also it seems like moving to JDK 1.5 warrants more of a version
>>>>> change than +0.1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> James Carman wrote:
>>>> So, call it 1.5
>>> 
>>> Hehehe.
>>> 
>>> Seriously, we have switched the minimal JDK requirement often between minor
>>> versions (most prominent case is DBCP) and kept Maven G:A as long as it is
>>> binary compatible. Comparing the gap from lang 2.x to lang 3.x, it looks
>>> strange to me switching for io from 1.x to 2.0.
>> 
>> I guess it is a bit arbitrary - but then I think each component makes
>> the decision on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't seem strange to me
>> and I prefer 2.0 than 1.5. Also it leaves room if we ever want to
>> release a bug-fix for the JDK 1.3 branch. I know thats unlikely,
>> although Jukka did talk of doing this for Jackrabbit
>> 
>>    http://markmail.org/message/ijeuxvemzmdzuw3s
>> 
>>> What would be your intention as a normal user with this versioning?
>>> Would you use it as drop in replacement?
>> 
>> Its drop in except you now need a later JDK version. Anyway, I would
>> hope they would read the release notes:
>> 
>>   http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/upgradeto2_0.html
>> 
>> ...and be pleasantly surprised that it is a drop in replacement :)
>> 
>> I do think it from a user PoV it does make it easier to remember which
>> version the JDK change happened and I think it likely users would find
>> it strange that a change in JDK version only warranted a +0.1 in
>> version number.
>> 
>> Niall
>> 
>>> - Jörg
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message