On Oct 6, 2010, at 5:49, "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com<mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de<mailto: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 A bug fix release would be a 1.4.x release though... <http://markmail.org/message/ijeuxvemzmdzuw3s> 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> 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: <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org<mailto:dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:dev-h...@commons.apache.org> dev-h...@commons.apache.org<mailto:dev-h...@commons.apache.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
