commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject Re: [CLI] two different versions of commons-cli-1.0.jar?
Date Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:26:09 GMT
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 02:26 +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > Rob/Torsten, so what's the plan for this? Who's doing what etc?
> > Anything I can help make happen? Perms etc.

As noted in a separate email, an RC is up for review.

There is one question still to be decided though: do we *delete* the
existing 1.0 jar from ibiblio, or replace it with the right one.

I've argued for deleting it because otherwise projects that declare
dependencies on 1.0 will work differently when compiled on different
systems depending on what version (if any) is in the maven cache.

So person A can compile (getting the snapshot) and see a certain
behaviour. Person B can compile the same software on a different machine
(getting the correct 1.0) and see different behaviour. Very confusing.

I would rather see person B get an error message saying that
commons-cli-1.0.jar cannot be found on ibiblio. They will then go to the
cli website and see why, and fix the project to depend on 1.0.1 instead.

Ok, deleting the ambiguous 1.0.jar file doesn't completely solve the
problem for our hypothetical A and B if they both already have the jar
cached in maven's repo, but have different versions. Still, deleting
will warn as many people as possible of this issue.

Replacing the bad 1.0 with the good one at this point is probably not a
good idea either. Again, we have the issue where someone has a working
product based on the snapshot (under the illusion it is the real
release). By replacing this with the "real" 1.0 we could potentially
break their product if they depend on behaviour present in the snapshot
but not the real release. Instead, removing the bad 1.0 will alert them
to resolve the issue by hand. 

Actually, we should probably continue to make the bad 1.0 available but
under a different name for the use of people who want to continue using
it. I'd be happy to go in and rename the jar right now, to something
if there is agreement on that.

The alternative is to leave the bad 1.0 there on the principle that
it hasn't actually broken anyone's code that we are aware of (just
confused a few people who spotted that it wasn't the real 1.0 release).

So to summarise, here are the options I see:
  A: replace bad 1.0 jar with good 1.0 jar
  B: rename bad 1.0 jar, do NOT provide any commons-cli-1.0.jar
  C: leave bad 1.0 jar as-is

Here's my opinion:
 A: -0
 B: +1
 C: -0

Comments? Feedback from users (who will be the most affected by this)
is very welcome. Please send replies to only one list (not both user and



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

View raw message