IMHO, given that the 1.2 line has been in the works for some time, and any effort to repackage the class tree will almost certainly lead to changes ( trivial bug fixes, etc), why not stick to the org.objectstyle packaging for the 1.2 final release, and move on ot org.apache from there?
another consideration in the naming scheme is to align the version to specific java specs. ie: release 1.5 corresponds to ( and provides an implementation compatible with) java 1.5. i've seen this in a couple of projects, and might present an opportunity to shake off legacy dependencies for pre java 5 ( the multiple source projects never sat well with me to be honest..) in the end, so long as the numbers keep going up, i spose it doesnt really matter, but i for one wouldnt like to see a 1.2 release with org.objectstyle and another from org.apache just my 2c. j ps: nice work on the move to incubator, i really hope this leads to greater exposure of this excellent framework to a wider audience! On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:53 +0400, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > From the purely practical standpoint, when 1.2 goes final, I wonder > if we should keep the maintenance branch on SourceForge. This way > we'll have a clean cutoff point. > > I think releasing org.objectstyle.cayenne.* stuff from Apache is > confusing (if not legally wrong). I know other incubating projects > are doing that (roller), but at some point we will graduate from the > Incubator... and will still want to maintain 1.2.x branch at that time. > > So once we get setup @apache, I suggest to initially only migrate the > new stuff (i.e. JPA), and move the core framework when we are ready > to change the package names. > > Does it make sense? I think we are pretty close to the 1.2 RC when > the total code freeze starts, and then we can actually branch it out. > > Andrus
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
