Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 37741 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2010 16:53:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 16 Oct 2010 16:53:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 85252 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2010 16:53:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 85139 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2010 16:53:17 -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 85131 invoked by uid 99); 16 Oct 2010 16:53:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:53:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.82.49] (HELO mail-ww0-f49.google.com) (74.125.82.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:53:09 +0000 Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so1891451wwd.6 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.137.76 with SMTP id v12mr2508412wbt.113.1287247962730; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:52:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com Received: by 10.227.144.139 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CB8CA05.8060308@apache.org> <4CB9AEF9.5080208@apache.org> <4CB9B4DD.5060901@gmail.com> From: James Carman Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:52:22 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UUoA4GeRYOgVCvRbMlk0uqJu0DI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [pool] time to move groupId? To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > > Consistency is good, but deciding something based purely on > *consistency* rather than the merits of the situation is mindless. > Trying to keep things consistent is being mindful of the user's needs. The consistency is part of the situation. When you go to pool version 3, you'll have: 1.x - commons-pool:common-pool with package org.apache.commons.pool 2.x - org.apache.commons:commons-pool with package org.apache.commons.pool2 3.x - org.apache.commons:commons-pool3 with package org.apache.commons-pool3 Makes lots of sense to the users. Again, it comes down to "you don't work on this project so stay out of its damn business" and "the release manager is doing the work so they can do whatever the hell they want." So, why don't we just do what Incubator does and have a mini-PMC for each subproject since you don't want other members of the Commons PMC butting their noses into a project they don't actively participate in? At this point, I really don't care what you guys do. In the grand scheme of things, it has absolutely zero impact on me what you do with this code. I'm tired of arguing about this stuff all the time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org