On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:50, "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Hi Niall, >> >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >> >>> I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the >>> tag). As there have been quite a few changes in the last week, I'll >>> leave it a few days before even considering whether to call a vote, to >>> give time for feedback. >>> >>> The distro is here: >>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/ >>> >>> Release Notes: >>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt >>> >>> Site: >>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/ >>> >>> Maven Stuff: >>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/maven/ >>> >>> Some Notes: >>> >>> * There is one error on the clirr report - which is a false positive >>> (a generic method that is erased) >>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/clirr-report.html >>> * Links to the JavaDoc versions on the site don't work (they will when >>> its deployed to the right location) >> >> thanks for all the work you put into this release. I had not the time to >> look at the new stuff in detail, but looking at the release notes, I wonder >> about the version: >> >> 1/ requires now Java 5 instead of 1.3 >> 2/ is binary compatible with 1.4 >> 3/ does not remove deprecated stuff >> 4/ is using the same package name >> 5/ is using the old Maven groupId >> 6/ adds a lot new stuff >> 7/ deprecates some stuff >> 8/ contains bug fixes >> >> IMHO we started with 2.0 because we were not sure if topic 2/ and 3/ can be >> ensured for 1/ and it was not a primary goal. However, this turned out fine >> and 1/ has been never forcing a major version change in general. So, is >> there any other reason to call this release 2.0 instead of 1.5? > > 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 > +1, a major jre req change warrants a +1.0 to the version. Gary > Niall > >> Cheers, >> Jörg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
