Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-131649-apmail-commons-dev-archive=commons.apache.org@commons.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4AB0A9554
	for <apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Thu,  8 Dec 2011 11:20:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 89705 invoked by uid 500); 8 Dec 2011 11:20:56 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org
Received: (qmail 89599 invoked by uid 500); 8 Dec 2011 11:20:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@commons.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@commons.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.commons.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org
Received: (qmail 89591 invoked by uid 99); 8 Dec 2011 11:20:56 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:20:56 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.220.171] (HELO mail-vx0-f171.google.com)
 (209.85.220.171)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:20:49 +0000
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so5090795vcb.30
        for <dev@commons.apache.org>; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:20:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=C3as/ywiiUuSHhHwT8XYwz8IIoXuY7d938JMQ4qrpMU=;
        b=qAsaE5XA0xzgGcInZS3yFj/PBOztqkjHSgakBHLPdbBlt3+AuwSuVEdbmRQh0/FeKl
         w0KJYLzrlz/HATD3UybV7hdvQy2zbag708Fja4Zzwmu0eT0d648R+udZH7Ay8rlbOLO2
         oBhZurGTBbuVITMQjtI63A7pgOqx1nsBS4YNA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.0.131 with SMTP id 3mr239704vcb.213.1323343228311; Thu, 08
 Dec 2011 03:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.230.132 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 03:20:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <jbq5dr$ghr$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: 
 <CACZkXPxcY6BDGcucN7gsHyg5zYOm6o=wprEDsxX4sWBVDqy8ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<jbjhia$7eo$3@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAOGo0VZLdGGeNLWccfxTU56wgS32v0nVxqUbOYKc+5avFHY4DQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACZkXPwsFSFJY21-Zi2fKdXhSKaucDNf33EmeURjjQv0_kvK5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<jbpnu5$nkg$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAOGo0VYJhmPktb5g_7UKNEPNANN2=OrSkKcOrr9DMjrkM_f0tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<jbq5dr$ghr$1@dough.gmane.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:20:28 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAOGo0VZ6hWDGR=fH9suREVbJ=QQgQf5ZUL5D6YWySXq4wtsYYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VFS] next release
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 8 December 2011 11:01, J=F6rg Schaible <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com> wro=
te:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 8 December 2011 07:11, J=F6rg Schaible <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on
>>>> Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that =
do
>>>> break binary compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> We can retain the VFS name and brand for the project, but I'd prefer
>>>> o.a.c.vfs<n> to be for VFS2 based work and to create o.a.c.filesystem
>>>> (or fs) for Java 7 FileSystem-based work.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Until now we had the policy to add the major number to the package name
>>> i.e. this is org.apache.commons.vfs3 here.
>>
>> As I already mentioned earlier in this thread, that may clash with
>> updates to VFS 2.x that need a new package name.
>
> And how long do you expect that both branches are actively developed? It
> took years from 1.x to 2.x. And why should someone start active developme=
nt
> with vfs2 if there's already vfs3 around?

Because AIUI VFS3 targets Java 1.7 up; it won't work on Java 1.5 or 1.6.

I hope no-one is suggesting that VFS no longer be developed for Java
1.6 just yet.

> - J=F6rg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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