commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:08:30 GMT
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, James Carman <> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <> wrote:
>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
>> think it should be 2.0. So far there are five who think 1.5 (Jörg,
>> James, Michael, Paul & Matt). So people disagree. Its OK to have a
>> massive debate on this, but I would much rather spend my time on
>> something less trivial than version number ideology.
> The problem is that you're causing some inconsistency.  Bumping major
> version numbers without changing package name/artifactId doesn't go
> along with what Apache Commons has come up with as a "best practice"
> or sorts.  Jumping to 2.0 also carries with it an assumption of binary
> incompatibility for most users.

Commons is a federation. IMO Its not a one-size-fits all with a set of
rules to make all components adhere to. We do different things on
different projects and generally leave decisions up to the developers
on that component.

I disagree completely with your assertions about version numbers:

* We have some very widely used components that we don't break binary
compatibilty without a package name change (e.g. Lang, Logging,
Collections, IO, DBCP, BeanUtils to name some). However there are
other components where I think its OK to do that (for example
Validator 1.2.0 did removing deprecated items)

* I agree with the practice that *if* a component decides to change
the package name, it should be a *major* version. But that is
different from a "a major version number therefore means a package
rename" and that is a something I've don't remember anyone even
suggesting here.

I also don't agree with your assertion "assumption of binary
incompatibility for most users" - the vast majority of users never
even visit us here and are unaware of our practices. I bet that most
users either try-it-out before committing to and upgrade and if
they're concerned, go look for the release notes - which are very
clear on this.


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

View raw message