commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [math] roadmap for 2.X and 3.0 ?
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:44:45 GMT
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Gilles Sadowski
<gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it mean that at least one of the two libraries is not an active
> project? Otherwise I'd think they would benefit from upgrading.
>

So what if it isn't?  If the library works for what you need it to do
and it relies on an older version of commons math, then why stop using
it?  Also, if you don't have control over the third-party library,
then you can't force them to upgrade (as they may have users other
than you).

> Another aspect is that, by making it possible, we would encourage "lazy"
> users to not upgrade, and would thus loose them as "testers" of the new
> releases.
>

Well, I wouldn't exactly call them "lazy", but again if an older
version of commons math works for what they need to do and they've got
a production system using it, then why should they try to upgrade if
they don't need any of the newer features?  Why introduce a new
variable into a perfectly-running system?  Now, if they wish to use
new features, then they will no doubt upgrade.  The situation we're
trying to avoid is where our users get upset because we've set them up
for failure by releasing two binary incompatible versions and they
have code (direct or indirect) that depends on both version.  When
that happens, they might look to other solutions/libraries.  Do you
think they'll be testing your new features then?

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


Mime
View raw message