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 74.125.83.43 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=IhLCEYmuk5KayabpPgTZL84ZlFOfNfQgXd6nxVdimxvKdu2spOg2Rto7EPWkar4XPl
         s3EpceHLz3bOKodT/RvEompzd78/4JaZYWIUFmh4kkQX6yJET6TwaMxhABIsDf64MxyR
         rEW+WAhJk4joDfE3ofBEuhv103x37F2rvr8aw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikvAPoAGUN5r+jzWthRBqddo_j3Y4Z2nLJ0g9e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikvAPoAGUN5r+jzWthRBqddo_j3Y4Z2nLJ0g9e8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:16:38 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHmy71a+q3tWZoiL8j6+7jbPgyvHMbqFVV4DK0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept the package name/artifactId guideline as a
 "rule"...
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, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Carman
<james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> We've had this package name/artifactId change discussion numerous
> times and I think it's time we put this thing to a vote. =A0What I
> propose is that we say that this is a rule and in order to "break"
> that rule, you have to provide strong evidence that the component's
> situation is unique and not affected by the issues that this rule
> tries to address. =A0This is to avoid re-hashing this argument all the
> time. =A0If a component wants to break the rule, then they should think
> through the arguments (read the Wiki page first) and carefully
> consider why they feel they are unique and unaffected by the issues.
> So, here's the rule:
>
> A major version change requires that you change the package name (the
> part that comes after org.apache.commons) and the Maven artifactId to
> the component's name with the major version appended to the end.

Package name change decisions should be based purely on whether a
component decides whether breaking binary compatibility is acceptable
or not.

I also think conflating version/packagename/maven issues causes
confusion. The decisions for each influence each, but IMO they need to
be considered separately.

So -1 from me.

Niall


> [ ] +1 - accept this as a rule
> [ ] -1 - do not accept this as a rule
>
> Note that we already have a "rule" that says if you're going to break
> binary compatibility, you have to change the major version number, so
> this rule picks up where that one leaves off I guess.
>
> p.s. =A0We might also want to propose a rule that says any new releases
> of a commons component have to be done in the org.apache.commons
> groupId, but that's another issue.
>
> p.p.s. If anyone cares to restate this rule, please feel free to do
> so. =A0I may not have addressed certain "gotchas", but the general idea
> is presented.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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