Phil Steitz wrote at Sonntag, 7. März 2010 22:03: > 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: >>>>> 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 > > 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@
+1, this was also my understanding of the last discussion's consensus. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
