On 4/7/06, Cris Daniluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I suggested this before, and it may be a bit more effort than we are > willing to undertake at this point, but I think it may be beneficial to > release a 1.2 "Apache" release at some point in time. > > My reasoning is that while we should keep the "org.objectstyle" packages in > tact in 1.2, users may have an easier migration path if they can move to > Apache packages in one release, then to new potentially incompatible > functionality in the next. Acegi drove me crazy when they did their package > rename along with class renames. It took me a ridiculous amount of time to > migrate a small application. Then again, with Spring, what is ever > easy......................... :) > > Whether or not we do that, I do think SF for 1.2 and Apache/SVN for 2.0 is > the right approach. For purposes of migration and preserving VCS history, we > are still going to want to import the org.objectstyle packages and then > migrate them from inside SVN, but we can branch and deadend the > org.objectstyle code line after the rename is complete.. thus, it will feel > like a "donation".
I'm with Cris on this. +1 for migrating all history into apache SVN. +1 for a "repackaging" release of cayenne with a minimal amount of code changes. I think doing this right after the 1.2 release makes a great deal of sense. I'd recommend calling it 2.0 rather than "apache 1.2" though since it's no longer backwards compatible.
