Fine by me too. If the package name change is agreed then I'm happy to close LANG-561.
Also, we probably ought to make 2.x the 'default' Gump project for LANG, so other projects have to deliberately choose lang-3. On 09/12/2009, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > After thoughtful deliberation, I also favor lang3 package change. My > reasoning is so that migration is not an all-or-nothing for users. They can > use both lang < 3 and lang 3 simultaneously and transition overtime. > > Paul > > > On 12/9/2009 2:52 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > Sorry - forgot the marker. > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Henri Yandell<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps now is the right time to do the package change? > > > > > > Does anyone have a better idea than: > > > > > > org.apache.commons.lang -> org.apache.commons.lang3? > > > > > > That kind of sets us up for lang 4.0 needing a package change as well, > > > but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. > > > > > > Hen > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton (JIRA)<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-561?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12787657#action_12787657 > ] > > > > > > > > Niall Pemberton commented on LANG-561: > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Presumably there is going to be a package name change before Lang 3.0 > is released? If so everything breaks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
