On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2010-03-07 16:45, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 2010-03-07 12:41, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:15 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> The trunk pom.xml refers to 1.5-SNAPSHOT, but it seems to me that the >>>>> next release should be 2.0 rather 1.5, as IO now requires Java 1.5, >>>>> that requires a major version change. >>>> >>>> The plan was to release it as 2.0 - but IMO its not a requirement. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Does that make sense? >>>>> If so, then the maven id can also be fixed (see IO-125). >>>> >>>> -1 - see comments on JIRA ticket >>> >>> We need to make this switch sooner rather than later. Currently every >>> release with a groupId och commons-* requires manual work from the >>> people who manage Maven central repository. We're just about the only >>> Apache project left not using a groupId of org.apache.*. >> >> I thought it was only when we did the first m2 release for a component >> and not for subsequent m2 releases for the group. Is that not the >> case? > > It used to be that way, but it has changed. The repo maintainers want to > remove all manual stuff, including anything from Apache that is not > under groupId org.apache.*. We (the ASF) don't want anything pushed to > the central repository that is from under groupId other than org.apache.*. > > It is only a matter of time before our current way (groupid commons-*) > will be shut down completely. If people have opinions about this I > suggest that you take them to reposit...@a.o for discussion.
OK >>> We have previously said that we should make the switch to a groupId of >>> org.apache.commons when we do a major release. IMO we need to stick by >>> that decision. >> >> I don't remember that decision, do you have a link to the thread? Even >> if we did - this is going to cause problems for users who change their >> dependency to the latest - but also depend on other artifacts that >> have an older dependency on commons-io. Is this user pain worth it? > > I found this thread, which touches the issue: > > http://markmail.org/message/l3oezqvhehscm67l > > For such a change to be totally transparent we cannot rely on the > relocation feature of Maven, which has been discussed before. We would > have to change the package name, which I think was done in lang, from > org.apache.commons.io to org.apache.commons.io2. I'm sorry but having the build-tool/repository force a package rename is nuts. Niall >> >> Niall >> >>>> Niall --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
