Right. Also, we already voted on this once and came to an agreement -
I didn't want anyone to be suprised that we were suddenly revisiting
it with a new vote, so I started a discussion thread first.
So, let's see if we can get consensus on this. I am in favor of
version numbers in the file names, and apparently so is Todd. What do
others think? If we agree, I'd suggest that we make this change in
conjunction with the package name change and adding src/doc JARs to
the binary distribution, and do so in the near future.
On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
This topic was highly contentious last time around, which is
probably why
Greg was thinking of a vote. But then again, perhaps opinions have
changed. I was probably the biggest proponent of versioned jars in
the
past, and my opinion hasn't changed.
-T
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[email protected]> wrote:
Just to be clear: when there consensus has been achieved, there's no
need for an official vote, unless it is something legally binding
such
as new committer, pmc member or release.
Martijn
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Todd Volkert<[email protected]>
wrote:
+1 (in favor of a vote :) )
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is
appropriate
to
raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package
names and
adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this
issue
and
would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file
names
at
this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put
this to
a
vote.
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://
wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
