On 11/14/06, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Xavier Hanin wrote: > On 11/13/06, easyproglife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Xavier, >> >> Changing packages names IMO is a major change. I don't think 1.5 is a >> good >> candidate for such a version. >> >> IMO, you should start from ivy 2.0 with apache package names. > > > On one hand I agree, 2.0 would better reflect the changes of package names > and the refactorings. On the other hand, a 2.0 with no major new feature > would not necessarily be well understood. Anyway, I have no strong opinion > on the subject, but Ivy 1.4 already break some code at API level, the main > difference here is that it would break all code :-) well, you could make the package renaming the 2.0 milestone. A lot of projects, commercial and OSS have trouble at v2.0, as its the uncontrolled feature edition. In Apache, Axis 2.0 is a case in point (though its really Apache SOAP 3.0), and Ant has never got to a 2.0 release because it got so controversial.
Yes a real 2.0 version is scaring me for the moment, I think we should first try to benefit from current Ivy code, without trying to rewrite and rethink everything. Current Ivy version is far from being perfect but it works. Trying to make a real 2.0 the first release (I mean, with a status release, not a milestone) on apache would imply a big delay that I don't think Ivy with its current community and popularity can really afford. Xavier
