Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96955 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2010 11:28:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2010 11:28:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 20440 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2010 11:28:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 19964 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2010 11:28:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 19956 invoked by uid 99); 6 Oct 2010 11:28:30 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:28:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jodastephen@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.171] (HELO mail-qy0-f171.google.com) (209.85.216.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:28:24 +0000 Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so1037332qyk.9 for ; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 04:28:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JM5MH3w/gyFtUkLHUEZsHxbBohJ52G1xtH/pTo7A9I8=; b=j62X+uveUXHTaxu3CFNMUBXswpEEFxfhYqRhLmRPyE0uAb3LUIX/zCLNK19HOnelpm odeRuWMHFbqdELMlASjgfbb7SoWg5/FtPPqIprMQJ/NLB9JVOFOPwxXyTZa4yp59PjZ2 T55WOMLhUUUmiHXLacGJ4r4sqImoAek3BAPiI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Gv1fDhVn8oHjxd0CKkMBWJKYQqdscseJ8DgqZd4iLrzRbsKQHEdwSHt0hb4MSiBvWu DIVKujZPGvscTRhtIiIS6VlbVwCfj6D3xKEHQgwGTL7ClArJeR3Qi8HMKMsPJxx0gxYP kv3Pz27r1bKD3GJ3l/ACJdNMoSR2/MM3U6t1A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.45.135 with SMTP id e7mr9308056qaf.390.1286364483264; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 04:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jodastephen@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.234.3 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 04:28:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:28:03 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qxMTuYjW98lxobdNH8engZ9IFnc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review From: Stephen Colebourne To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 6 October 2010 11:49, Niall Pemberton 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: > > =A0 =A0http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr > > Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of > that debate ended up about maven groupIds: > > =A0 =A0http://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 A move to JDK 1.5 would be sufficient for a v2.0 IMO. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org