I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
It's specifically a location of code that is:
a) Not linked to a version. When we move to 4.0 it does not change.
b) Does not offer
- Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com a écrit :
I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
It's specifically a location of code that is:
a) Not linked to a version. When we
On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:36, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
It's specifically a location of code that is:
a) Not linked to a
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:07 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 April 2011 07:35, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
Once 3.0 is out I'd like to add an alpha subpackage:
org.apache.commons.lang-alpha
It's
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
makes it a separate project/branch etc. Even if we mess around in
Maven to produce multiple jars, we're still create two separate
artifacts simply to deal
I'd agree with an alpha area, but I don't agree with releasing it.
[lang] is too core to other projects to be doing things like that IMO.
Stephen
On 7 April 2011 07:35, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been pondering the tension between stability and innovation.
Once 3.0 is out
It's worthless unless we release it. :(
A similar example is that I don't see why we can't have lang4 code
appearing in the lang3 jar; and I don't see why we would have to be
backwards compat for the lang4 code while on the lang3 branch.
I agree it's novel, but lang is too core to other projects
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
makes it a separate project/branch etc. Even if we mess around in
Maven
On 7 April 2011 16:42, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a separate jar would be lot less valuable - that basically
makes it
On 4/7/11 10:00 AM, sebb wrote:
On 7 April 2011 16:42, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a separate jar would be lot less
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea of having a separate, releasable child of some
kind that can break compatibility with its parent and earlier
versions of itself is a good one. The setup I have described above
is probably not the best,
On 4/7/11 1:14 PM, sebb wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:08, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea of having a separate, releasable child of some
kind that can break compatibility with its parent and earlier
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/7/11 1:14 PM, sebb wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:08, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the idea of having a separate, releasable
13 matches
Mail list logo
