You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Henri Biestro <hb...@gmail.com> on 2011/11/28 08:51:57 UTC
[CANCELLED][VOTE] Release JEXL 2.1 based on RC1
Gary and Sebb pointed out that, per apache release rules, incompatible binaries require new package name (i.e. jexl3).
My bad, sorry.
Henrib
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release JEXL 2.1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 28 November 2011 13:51, henrib <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> One might argue that JEXL does not have that many users so jar hell is very
> (very) unlikely - no Apache project depends on jexl2 afaik - and that
> forcing "up to date/snapshot" users to switch to a new package when they're
> already used to recompile against the latest JEXL version is adding burden
> on their side (i.e. replace all o.a.c.jexl2 imports with o.a.c.jexl3, update
> maven dependencies, etc.) with no practical benefit.
Yes, JEXL is more of an edge case than say NET or Lang or Logging.
> However, following the commons best practice being the wisest route to
> release, I'll re-attempt an RC after migration to o.a.c.jexl3.
>
> Regards,
> Henrib
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/CANCELLED-VOTE-Release-JEXL-2-1-based-on-RC1-tp4114443p4115226.html
> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release JEXL 2.1 based on RC1
Posted by henrib <he...@apache.org>.
One might argue that JEXL does not have that many users so jar hell is very
(very) unlikely - no Apache project depends on jexl2 afaik - and that
forcing "up to date/snapshot" users to switch to a new package when they're
already used to recompile against the latest JEXL version is adding burden
on their side (i.e. replace all o.a.c.jexl2 imports with o.a.c.jexl3, update
maven dependencies, etc.) with no practical benefit.
However, following the commons best practice being the wisest route to
release, I'll re-attempt an RC after migration to o.a.c.jexl3.
Regards,
Henrib
--
View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/CANCELLED-VOTE-Release-JEXL-2-1-based-on-RC1-tp4114443p4115226.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release JEXL 2.1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 28 November 2011 12:03, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> I don't think that is either an apache thing or a rule. It's more of a
> commons best practice. It's one we strongly suggest for good reason,
> though.
Yes, because commons components are generally low-level libraries
which can be part of a dependency chain.
> Make sure the maven artifactId (and probably groupId too) changes
> correspondingly. This will allow older versions to coexist with new ones.
Package name changes must be accompanied by Maven id changes and
vice-versa to avoid jar-hell
This is because Maven relocation does not work with Maven Central.
> On Nov 28, 2011 2:52 AM, "Henri Biestro" <hb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary and Sebb pointed out that, per apache release rules, incompatible
>> binaries require new package name (i.e. jexl3).
>> My bad, sorry.
>> Henrib
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release JEXL 2.1 based on RC1
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I don't think that is either an apache thing or a rule. It's more of a
commons best practice. It's one we strongly suggest for good reason,
though. Make sure the maven artifactId (and probably groupId too) changes
correspondingly. This will allow older versions to coexist with new ones.
On Nov 28, 2011 2:52 AM, "Henri Biestro" <hb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary and Sebb pointed out that, per apache release rules, incompatible
> binaries require new package name (i.e. jexl3).
> My bad, sorry.
> Henrib
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>