On 10/20/06, Kris Nuttycombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What we call it sort of depends upon what we expect the future of the
project to be, doesn't it? Splitting the jar will just move some stuff
out; there'll likely still be a central collections component, and
*eventually* it'd be nice to still be able call this
commons-collections. Name recognition and all.
So, perhaps create the sandbox project as collections5 but use the
org.apache.commons.collections package name, and when it's time to
promote, do it as a major version release (maybe 5.0) of collections?
<snip/>
IMO, its better to package rename [collections] at this point (lesser
jar hell to deal with).
-Rahul
Kris
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Kris Nuttycombe wrote:
>> Should we make 3.2 the start of the branch, or is there a reason to
>> branch from the current state of the trunk?
>
> I think that we should tag HEAD of [collections], and then copy from
> there.
>
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > collections5 ? (don't like collgenerics)
>
> I would have suggested collections5 or collections15, but as has
> already been pointed out, this is a little strange when JDK6 is about
> to come out. Naming after the feature seems to make more sense.
>
> That said, the advantage with using the name collections5 is that we
> could use the same naming style for other projects - lang5, io5 etc.
>
> By the way, I hope to split the jar before release, so the name may
> not be *that* important right this second.
>
> Stephen
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
