commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: [VFS] Is it OK to upgrade commons-net to 2.2?
Date Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:27:05 GMT
Hi Stefan,

Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>> Since gump messages came in: vfs-1 will not be updated anyway ...
>>> As in "vfs-1 is no longer under any kind of development"?
>> Yes.
>>> If so, we should probably remove it from Gump anyway.
>> Could be interesting, since vfs-2 was generated quite before the first RC
>> of what was vfs-1.x before.
> I should probably clarify what I meant with "remove from Gump" and what
> I intend to do (either today or over the weekend).
> * Gump will no longer build commons-vfs(1).

Yeah, my fear is that vfs 1.0 is so old that some of the projects already 
depend on a vfs 1.x snapshot.

> * all mvn2 or mvn3 project that depend on vfs will get the version they
>   specify (this only affects Cargo) from the Maven repository.
> * for the Ant built projects that depend on vfs (Ivy, log4j-chainsaw and
>   vfs2-sandbox) I'll make the 1.0 jar available.

When all of them require normally the release, it's fine.
> Given that vfs2 comes with a different package name there wouldn't be
> any point in trying to use vfs2 as a replacement for vfs1.

> BTW, is it correct that vfs2 sandbox depends on vfs1 instead of vfs2?
> The POM seems to say no but this is how it is set up in Gump (and it
> uses Ant instead of mvn2 to build).  I don't really see how this could
> ever build.

Sounds indeed weird. Seems that the Gump descriptor had been forgotten.

- Jörg

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

View raw message