sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Gary Gregory wrote: >> >>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on >>> Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that do >>> break binary compatibility. >>> >>> We can retain the VFS name and brand for the project, but I'd prefer >>> o.a.c.vfs<n> to be for VFS2 based work and to create o.a.c.filesystem >>> (or fs) for Java 7 FileSystem-based work. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> Until now we had the policy to add the major number to the package name >> i.e. this is org.apache.commons.vfs3 here. > > As I already mentioned earlier in this thread, that may clash with > updates to VFS 2.x that need a new package name.
And how long do you expect that both branches are actively developed? It took years from 1.x to 2.x. And why should someone start active development with vfs2 if there's already vfs3 around? The same situation is now with vfs1. Why would I select as user vfs1 now? - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
