commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: AW: [math] roadmap for 2.X and 3.0 ?
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:30:07 GMT
Le 24/11/2010 17:09, Dietmar Wolz a écrit :
>> 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 
> trajectory
> 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

It's not always a matter of time. Change may be impossible due to either
project management rules, long certification processes before accepting
a new version of a subcomponent, or simply because source code is not

> 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 
> dependencies
> 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:

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

View raw message