Oh, I just meant have 2 releases that are healthy at the same time. One with old package and the other with new (different branches, different minor nfnums).
Otherwise, I would do it on "real" change like 2.0 as in a new codebase. This one is my preference, as otherwise the refactoring is more distraction than productive. -A On Nov 13, 2013 2:44 PM, "Ignasi" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should do the renaming in a major release (2.0), where users may > expect that many existing code will break. Providing a command/whatever is > a really nice thimg to send to the ML, but not all users are subscribed, so > I think it is better to introduce such a breaker change in a major. > > Regarding the 2 package thing (if I've understood), I don't see it: how > long will we keep the two packages? Are we going to request people sending > PRs to make the contributions in both packages? I don't see it practical. > > I. > El 13/11/2013 22:25, "Adrian Cole" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > My 2p is to release any package rename dist simultaneously with equiv > > functionality dist on the old package names. That way, folks can do a 2 > > commit conversion, first to whatever is new and second to the new > packages. > > > > I don't have a strong view on whether or not to rename, ^^ in the case it > > is bound to occur. > > > > -A > > On Nov 13, 2013 12:49 PM, "Andrew Gaul" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We should change the names at some point to conform with other Apache > > > projects. Doing this sooner rather than later will reduce overall > > > frustration. If we can reduce the user pain to some simple > > > command-line, e.g., > > > > > > find -name pom.xml -o -name \*.java | > > > xargs sed -i 's/org.jclouds/org.apache.jclouds/g' > > > > > > we should rename the package names for 1.7.0, immediately before rc1. > I > > > also want to use an automated path for changing jclouds itself, since > we > > > have so many source files and respositories. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 07:45:33PM +0000, Everett Toews wrote: > > > > I'm not aware of any packages with apache in them yet. My take on it > is > > > to keep things consistent and *not* name the package with apache. > > > > > > > > When (If?) we do the package renaming we should do it as a big bang > > > renaming coinciding with a major version change (2.0?). This is a huge > > > backwards incompatibly and we should keep things consistent for as long > > as > > > possible for our users sanity sake. > > > > > > > > Everett > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Jeremy Daggett wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > > > I was just creating a package and realized that it might not > > > necessarily be > > > > > correct. > > > > > > > > > > What is our plan on package naming going forward? As a top level > > > Apache > > > > > project, I would expect this to change to "org.apache.jclouds.*". > > > > > > > > > > Most packages are currently under "org.jclouds.*". Should I blaze > the > > > trail > > > > > on this and go for the new package name? Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > /jd > > > > > > -- > > > Andrew Gaul > > > http://gaul.org/ > > > > > >
