On Sep 27, 2005, at 4:41 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Hi,
I didn't know about that page. I do like the idea of
major.minor.patch,
but we haven't used three number versioning in the past so we would
have
to start it for 1.5 (1.5.0?).
The alternative would be the old "Turbine deprecation rules", which
work
pretty well for seldom released projects like Turbine or Velocity.
Deprecate after releasing Version "A", keep it deprecated in Version
"B", remove it in Version "C".
I always worry about removing deprecated things, as Velocity has been
very stable, and removing deprecated things forces people to
rewrite. Deprecation means "don't use this, and we won't maintain
it..." IMO, and "well remove at some point" is secondary.
There are some very broad (like all stuff in there) suggestions on how
to run deprecation at
http://maven.apache.org/development/deprecation.html (which is the
"Propaganda" link that is added to most Maven built sites because
nobody
seems to know about the maven.xdoc.developmentProcessUrl property. :-)
I still would like to remove the Configuration stuff. It was
intended as
a kludge until commons-collections came out with ExtendedProperties
and
then scheduled to go away. This was ~ 4 years ago. And it would
make it
very much easier to add commons-configuration based init code to
Velocity.
I'm not so sure. I personally am unnecessary-dependency-averse, and
that was a factor in the thinking. We needed one class..
Let's try lazy consensus here. If no one speaks up (this means you,
Will:-) ) and request re-adding of the Configuration class, I won't do
it.
Best regards
Henning
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 23:55 -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
"Will Glass-Husain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hey -
That's a non backwards-compatible change.
Yes.
Where did we document this would happen in 1.3 or 1.4?
In the header of the class. It was deprecated in 1.1 and we kept it
deprecated in 1.2, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.4. At some point we might want
to let
go of the past. :-)
If anyone is actually using the Configuration class, they are
probably
using Velocity 1.0 or so.
Speaking of which, I don't think we've ever formally adopted any
versioning
guidelines. APR has some good ones:
http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
Given that Velocity is as much (or more) a library as an
application, it
would make sense to use the same (or very similar) guidelines.
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering
4 - 8 - 15 - 16 - 23 - 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
