The reason the existing groupId was used was because it was a compatible release and so far in Commons we have not collectively or individually decided to relocate artifacts in that scenario.
Its probably a discussion we should have over on d...@. Although it will create issues for users relocating all our artifacts (and adding redirection poms) - it is something that can be resolved by a user (AFAIK they just have to remove old artifacts from the local repo). I'm starting to think we should just bite the bullet and do it. Niall On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM, James Carman <[email protected]>wrote: > The confusion is probably because most folks assume we would be using > the new group id which commons io (for some strange reason) did not. > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Niall Pemberton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Its been there since the day after it was released - see: > > > > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/commons-io/commons-io/2.0/ > > > > Niall > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released? > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
