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 12:49:19 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message