On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 May 2011 14:51, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package
>>> name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed.
>>
>> That's not different from a new maj
On 11 May 2011 14:51, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package
>> name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed.
>
> That's not different from a new major release in commons. If you
> anticipate the necessi
I agree and moreover I hate whenever I try to add a maven dependency
through Intellij Idea and I see 3 different major version, realizing
that the small version is the latter.
On 11 May 2011 15:41, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Would you guys be willing to start at 4.0-SNAPSHOT so there's a direct
> con
Hi Paul!
yes I agree, according to Joerg's suggestion, version should be
4.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
@Joerg: absolutely right, thanks for your help!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Would you guys be w
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb wrote:
> However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package
> name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed.
That's not different from a new major release in commons. If you
anticipate the necessity of binary changes, consider creating a
maintenance br
On 11 May 2011 14:36, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during
>> (most of) incubation.
>
> Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in
> incubation. As should be the pu
Would you guys be willing to start at 4.0-SNAPSHOT so there's a direct
continuation of versioning? Just a novel thought since it might help
others to see it's not a re-invention of OGNL, per se, but the
continuation of it.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On May 11, 2011, at
On May 11, 2011, at 9:36, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during
>> (most of) incubation.
>
> Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in
> incubation. As should be t
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb wrote:
> I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during
> (most of) incubation.
Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in
incubation. As should be the publication of an early release with the
new package names
On 11 May 2011 13:00, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Simone,
>
> Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi all guys,
>> as you maybe already noticed, we started working on OGNL codebase, I
>> some question that PMCs/Mentors can help to reply:
>>
>> * is it fine updating groupId to `org.apache.commons` and artifac
2011/5/11 Jörg Schaible
> > * version number: there are 2 way of thinking about it. For someone
> > is fine continuing from the old version number, IMHO it should be
> > 0.1-incubating, since in my mind ognl != commons-ognl. Which one
> > sounds better? I tried to see how running projects manage
Hi Simone,
Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> as you maybe already noticed, we started working on OGNL codebase, I
> some question that PMCs/Mentors can help to reply:
>
> * is it fine updating groupId to `org.apache.commons` and artifactId
> `commons-ognl` even if under incubation?
+1
>
Hi all guys,
as you maybe already noticed, we started working on OGNL codebase, I
some question that PMCs/Mentors can help to reply:
* is it fine updating groupId to `org.apache.commons` and artifactId
`commons-ognl` even if under incubation?
* version number: there are 2 way of thinking about i
13 matches
Mail list logo
