Hi Charles,

On Nov 18, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Charles Matthew Chen wrote:

   Ah, I misunderstood this comment:


Hmm, I'm not sure if this is a good idea to use the Apache package
namespace for a non Apache release. So to avoid any confusion and
problems I guess it would be better to upload an older release which
uses the old package names.

Now that you point it out, I can't understand the comment either.

If there are still some issues to be clarified maybe we can summarize them and have a discussion.

Craig


Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


   I'll undo the package structure change.

Charles.

On Nov 18, 2007 2:43 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Jeremias. If there was maintenance to be done, it could
have been branched.

Craig


On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:

Charles,

Why exactly did you revert the package renaming? If it's just for
doing
a maintenance release with the old package structure, a branch would
have been better. In the end it has to be org.apache.sanselan.

Jeremias Maerki



On 17.11.2007 22:58:40 cmchen wrote:
Author: cmchen
Date: Sat Nov 17 13:58:22 2007
New Revision: 596008

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=596008&view=rev
Log:
restored original package structure (from org.apache.sanselan.* ->
org.cmc.sanselan.*).
<snip/>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!



Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to