or perhaps you might mean changing the artifact name org.apache.uima : uimaj-core : 3.0.0 org.apache.uima : uimaj-core-j : 1.0.0
In this example, following a (weak) convention of suffixing "-j" to indicate the uima-v3 redesign version, and noting it could start with version 1.0.0... -Marshall On 1/16/2018 1:26 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: > By changing the "package names" - do you mean Java package names? > e.g., we have org.apache.uima.UIMAFramework (class); > what might be an alternative package name? > > Or do you mean a different maven coordinate "group" name? > > org.apache.uima : uimaj-core : 3.0.0 > (group) : (artifact-id) : version > > -Marshall > > > On 1/12/2018 5:06 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: >> If we change the artifact IDs, then IMHO we should also change the package >> names. That would allow multiple versions to co-exist. If we just change the >> artifactIds and not the packages, then Maven could end up adding multiple >> artifacts with overlapping and incompatible packages to the classpath. >> >> DKPro Core and WebAnno are both maintaining multiple versions in parallel. >> We're using GIT here, but I assume the general strategy we use could also be >> applied to SVN: >> >> - there is a "master" branch (i.e. svn trunk) which contains the very latest >> version. In terms of >> UIMA that would be v3. >> - there is one or more "maintenance" branches (e.g. 1.8.x, 1.9.x, etc. i.e. >> in svn branches/1.8.x, >> branches/1.9.x) where older versions are maintained >> - when there are bug-fixes to older versions, these branches are usually >> merged into the master >> branch as well >> - new features are usually added to the master branch, but minor features >> may also be added into >> the maintenance branches and be merge from there into the master branch >> - changes to the master branch do usually not get merged back into the >> maintenance versions >> >> We have then multiple Jenkins builds set up that monitor the different >> branches and build them. >> >> Release are done from the respective branches when convenient. >> >> Personally, I'd tend go down that road for uimaFIT since it worked out well >> for me on other projects. >> >> I haven't done a lot of merging with SVN for a while - with git it works >> great. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Richard >
