On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten wrote: > >> Hey All, >> >> As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg >> that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary >> compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release >> would be a major change (dropping backwards compatibility, removing >> deprecated code, using incompatible 1.5 features, etc.). The new >> refinements sound more like an extension to the 1.4 release to me, so >> 1.5 makes more sense. >> >> Will there be a point in the future where IO will be removing >> deprecated code and dropping backwards compatibility? If so, what >> release of IO will that be? That sounds more like a 2.0 release to me, >> but that's my opinion. >> > > I'm personally leaning toward 1.5 as well. The bugfix along the 1.3 > compatible line point is a red herring as the hypothetical fixes would be > made against 1.4.x.
There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that think it should be 2.0. So far there are five who think 1.5 (Jörg, James, Michael, Paul & Matt). So people disagree. Its OK to have a massive debate on this, but I would much rather spend my time on something less trivial than version number ideology. [1] http://markmail.org/message/flsmdalzs6tjv3va > $0.02, > Matt > >> -Michael >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Niall Pemberton >> <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nial wrote: >>>>>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and >>>>>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that >>>>>> starting point: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr >>>>>> >>>>>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of >>>>>> that debate ended up about maven groupIds: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/flsmdalzs6tjv3va >>>>>> >>>>>> It is arbitrary though - my preference is for 2.0 since it makes it >>>>>> easy to remember which releases were for JDK 1.3 and which for JDK >>>>>> 1.5. Also it seems like moving to JDK 1.5 warrants more of a version >>>>>> change than +0.1 >>>> >>>> >>>> James Carman wrote: >>>>> So, call it 1.5 >>>> >>>> Hehehe. >>>> >>>> Seriously, we have switched the minimal JDK requirement often between minor >>>> versions (most prominent case is DBCP) and kept Maven G:A as long as it is >>>> binary compatible. Comparing the gap from lang 2.x to lang 3.x, it looks >>>> strange to me switching for io from 1.x to 2.0. >>> >>> I guess it is a bit arbitrary - but then I think each component makes >>> the decision on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't seem strange to me >>> and I prefer 2.0 than 1.5. Also it leaves room if we ever want to >>> release a bug-fix for the JDK 1.3 branch. I know thats unlikely, >>> although Jukka did talk of doing this for Jackrabbit >>> >>> http://markmail.org/message/ijeuxvemzmdzuw3s >>> >>>> What would be your intention as a normal user with this versioning? >>>> Would you use it as drop in replacement? >>> >>> Its drop in except you now need a later JDK version. Anyway, I would >>> hope they would read the release notes: >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/upgradeto2_0.html >>> >>> ...and be pleasantly surprised that it is a drop in replacement :) >>> >>> I do think it from a user PoV it does make it easier to remember which >>> version the JDK change happened and I think it likely users would find >>> it strange that a change in JDK version only warranted a +0.1 in >>> version number. >>> >>> Niall >>> >>>> - Jörg >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
