On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> 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: <snip/> >>>>> 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 > > I think we need to have that discussion. We (Commons) are happy to > contribute to and subsequently follow ASF policy on how we publish > maven artifacts. Unless I missed it on repository@, though, we have > not as ASF agreed on a policy to retire the "legacy" groupIds. We > also seem to be lacking consensus / clarity on how exactly we can > accomplish "relocation" without potentially serious implications for > the users of heavily-depended-on components. > > Therefore here in commons, I think we have agreed that we will move > to org.apache.commons groupId when we make incompatible changes in a > new release. That *must* coincide with a major release and it *may* > coincide with a change in package name. It is possible, as in the > present case with [io], that a major release will not introduce > incompatible API changes, in which case we will not change the > groupId. I see us cutting patch releases using "legacy" IDs for some > time to come. > > Please commons ppl respond if you disagree with the statements > above. Assuming we are in agreement, we can continue the discussion > on repository@ > <snap/>
I think thats a good summary. > Phil > > >> >>>>> 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. >> <snip/> Indeed it is. -Rahul >> Niall >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
