commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:49:41 GMT
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll
>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to
>> give time for feedback.
>>
>> The distro is here:
>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/
>>
>> Release Notes:
>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>
>> Site:
>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/
>>
>> Maven Stuff:
>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/maven/
>>
>> Some Notes:
>>
>> * There is one error on the clirr report - which is a false positive
>> (a generic method that is erased)
>>     http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/clirr-report.html
>> * Links to the JavaDoc versions on the site don't work (they will when
>> its deployed to the right location)
>
> thanks for all the work you put into this release. I had not the time to
> look at the new stuff in detail, but looking at the release notes, I wonder
> about the version:
>
> 1/ requires now Java 5 instead of 1.3
> 2/ is binary compatible with 1.4
> 3/ does not remove deprecated stuff
> 4/ is using the same package name
> 5/ is using the old Maven groupId
> 6/ adds a lot new stuff
> 7/ deprecates some stuff
> 8/ contains bug fixes
>
> IMHO we started with 2.0 because we were not sure if topic 2/ and 3/ can be
> ensured for 1/ and it was not a primary goal. However, this turned out fine
> and 1/ has been never forcing a major version change in general. So, is
> there any other reason to call this release 2.0 instead of 1.5?

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

Niall

> Cheers,
> Jörg

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


Mime
View raw message