2009/12/29 Arnaud HERITIER <aherit...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On 29/12/2009, at 8:18 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > > > > > +1 with Ralph. It is what I have in mind. the problem is that we > already > > > moved from 2.1 to 3.0 and finally we should produce a 2.5 (our users > will > > be > > > lost). > > > But I agree, 3.0 isn't a 3.0, it is 100% backward compatible with 2.X. > > And > > > more annoying we are talking about having backward incompatibilities > > > (removing some stuffs) in 3.1. > > > I'm not comfortable with that. > > > > I tend to agree, but I think the target has moved so much, especially > with > > a lot of public talks about the versions, that changing anything might > cause > > further confusion. > > > > yes. it's impossible to change. > > > > > > What about something like this: > > - 2.3 (or 2.9?) release that just adds all the deprecations (kind of like > > what Lucene did before a major rev). > > - 3.0 release retains deprecated functionality, with a --strict mode to > > fail instead of warning (I haven't seen this, but ISTR Brian saying this > was > > going to be added, or is already there, at ApacheCon) > > - 3.1 can then drop the functionality > > > > So, 3.0 essentially drops the functionality, with a "grace period" - > which > > is closer to what users might expect without changing the current story. > > > > +1, with the strict mode activated by default in 3.0. We could have an > option in settings.xml to deactivate it for example. > > > > > WDYT? > > > > I agree. The problem will be in 3.1. We'll be able to remove things > deprecated in 3.0 but nothing more. > We'll have to see what we'll do if we have big changes. > For me the most important problem to work on (post 3.0), will be how we > manage different versions of POMs and metadata. This will have an important > impact for our users. > > cheers, > > I think this depends on what model changes we want.
My Idea is to deploy the new version pom as a pom with a classifier and co-deploy a v4.0.0 translated pom as the pom without a classifier. That way we can have m4 look for the pom with classifier (if missing it looks for the v4.0.0 pom) everything older will only see the pom without a classifier -Stephen P.S. I think Brian Fox had a similar idea > > > > - Brett > > > > -- > > Brett Porter > > br...@apache.org > > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > >
