Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of niall.pemberton@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ld7dC1ftuLIgCSyG5kPo0NEsEeNN7Z6IluMrr5pRD3SGJ8l5OWEuZKC5q6GhlcU5cx
         ne/O60toZ3VIZflS6gQ39xp+VjSk0DW11a+v4U3d3FNrEl5Ia0XIe3KFlUYDdgFHRT0b
         ddBcCfsmfHtkbbnkN3KLWcV+gBf7SRZoHzo1s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i8hnf7$pt2$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <AANLkTikwyGbnkZBm-j9nT9B11pFZDD+MnfuHLvtRU0h6@mail.gmail.com>
	<i8h7t0$kts$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTim2CuB-fUn72JiV7bxeLTA9RfGsCkytYKw1cpU4@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimuHpPTq4LDch80KN3dev6O4z4m0D4JvihFkTZj@mail.gmail.com>
	<i8hnf7$pt2$1@dough.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:49:19 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimmL_U+x1bBZAhfsJEj2mS8Sdo1Sc6c0EfiN9rw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
From: Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, J=F6rg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wr=
ote:
>
>> 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 min=
or
> versions (most prominent case is DBCP) and kept Maven G:A as long as it i=
s
> 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

> - J=F6rg

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