commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:06:36 GMT
So, call it 1.5

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message