Perhaps you could run a clirr report, and publish the result? That way we can all see what the amount of change in the API is.
And yes, this cold potentially be a problem with any non backwards-compatible release. As I said before, I'm driving to find out how this release will sit within the wider OSS and user community, and to try and avoid jar-hell. Stephen ----- Original Message ---- From: Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 13 September, 2006 8:53:27 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release [net] version 2.0 Stephen I'm afraid I dont really get waht you're asking? Surely this would be a problem with any project that produces a non-backwards-compatible release? As for the API, it is 99% backwards compatible - so far, there are little changes to the public interface. Stephen Colebourne wrote: > My question is whether 2.0 is backwards compatible with 1.0. If it > isn't, then how are we going to handle the situation where two > different OSS projects refer to two different versions of [net] - > jar-hell. > > Stephen > > > Rory Winston wrote: >> Steve >> >> Sorry, I should have been more specific >> >> 1) Yes, there will be two separate branches of development. At the >> moment, the trunk is the 1.x branch, whereas there is a separate >> branch for JDK 5.0 dev. We can keep this the way it is, or swap the >> trunk and branch at some stage. >> >> 2) We need two sites, for sure. I think an easy way would be to do >> the separate Maven 1 (1.x codebase) and Maven 2.0 (2.x codebase) >> builds, and just put a link from one site to the other in the Maven >> menus. Otherwise, if Maven 2 can handle this kind of situation out of >> the box, we should move the 1.x build over to Maven 2 as well.What do >> you think? >> >> Hope this helps >> Rory >> >> Steve Cohen wrote: >> >>> Rory Winston wrote: >>> >>>> OK, seeing as we have reached some kind of consensus on how to >>>> handle backards-incompatible JDK releases, I'm restarting the vote >>>> for a release of Commons::Net 2.0 (the JDK 5.0 branch). >>>> >>>> As per usual, just respond with >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> +0 >>>> -0 >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Rory >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Sorry, Rory, but I think you need to express the consensus that you >>> think we are voting on. You haven't done that. "release of >>> Commons::Net 2.0 (the JDK 5.0 branch)" doesn't get to the heart of >>> all the issues. >>> >>> 1: Are there two "official" branches or is 1.4.x relegated to >>> "backward compatibility mode"? I would insist that there be two >>> branches until Sun puts 1.4.x into EndOfLife mode. >>> >>> 2. Is the site going to be organized to reflect the two branches? >>> >>> If those two points are part of your "motion", I'm +1. Otherwise, >>> I'm -1. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
