commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [math] Version mgt idea
Date Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:02:59 GMT
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
>> Hi.
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically 
>>> adhere
>>> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
>>> 5.1... but even-numbered lines can include breaks -
>> I like the proposal to be more lax on compatibility breaking than
>> I ever dreamed of.  ;-)
>>> so 4.0 and 4.1
>>> might not be compatible.
>> Isn't that going to cause JAR hell?
> Yes, within the even-numbered branches.  But we would repackage and
> rename at each version cut as we do now.

I don't follow.
Is top-level package renaming in order: e.g.
"org.apache.commons.math4m0" for 4.0
"org.apache.commons.math4m1" for 4.1

This would be akin to the "experimental" package idea evoked
in an earlier incarnation of this discussion.

> So the only "hell" would
> be if someone deploys multiple different versions from an
> even-numbered branch.  We would expect them to be less widely
> deployed, so this would be less of an issue.

I don't follow either.
What issue did you intend to solve with the proposal?

My wish is that all (users and developers) can enjoy a timely
official release of the "bleeding edge"; whereas it now seems
to me that you are only talking about branch naming.
[And even-numbered ones will likely not be released because
of JAR hell.]

Or what did I miss?


> Phil
>> Gilles
>>> We would always maintain both an odd and
>>> even branch - ideally in such a way that when an even numbered line
>>> stabilized it would add a last hurrah of breaks and move to odd.
>>> People wanting stable APIs could just stick with the odd-numbered
>>> lines and [math] developers wanting to experiment with things and
>>> not worry about compatibility could do that in the even-numbered
>>> lines.  In effect, this is sort of what we are doing now in 3.x /
>>> 4.x.
>>> I know above violates Commons policy if we actually cut releases
>>> from the even-numbered branches - we would have to get agreement
>>> from the Commons PMC that this is OK or somehow label the releases
>>> differently.  Just an idea to get us out of our current bind...
>>> Phil

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

View raw message