commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dietmar Wolz <>
Subject AW: [math] roadmap for 2.X and 3.0 ?
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:09:54 GMT

>The name change is not for maintaining several versions in parallel. It
>is to allow projects to have parts depending on the old (unmaintained)
>version and new (maintained) version to compile and let them go back in
>sync progressively. It is exactly the same process than the change in
>2.2 for the user exceptions: we know there WILL be a transition period
>for some projects and we help them during this transition.

Today I did the version update from 2.1 to the current trunk for my GTOC5 
optimization framework which uses CM and Orekit. There were
a lot of changes necessary but I managed to do them in about two hours. 

The question is: Are there projects using CM where the transition time is
large enough to justify the usage of two different versions of CM at
the same time? I am usually working in an OSGI-context where in principal
such situations are supported. But we never use it for direct project 
but only for indirect ones - for instance if we depend on two 
third party libraries which depend on two different versions of a third one. 
And if I have to support a complex dependency graph - why not using OSGI?

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

View raw message