[net] trunk vs branches

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

Hi,

over in Ant land we've received a bug report that Ant's ftp task
wouldn't compile against commons-net 2,0 because the IMAGE_FILE_TYPE
constant was removed from the FTP class.

Given that trunk still has that constant, is trunk in net sort of
obsolete and we should consider one of the branches as its tip?  If so,
should we change Gump to build from one of the branches?

Gump would have told us about the breakage, which may have been
important for net as well since the constant has never been deprecated
and the migration howto claims "no changes necessary" which is obviously
not true.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: [net] trunk vs branches

[Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Stefan Bodewig<bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> over in Ant land we've received a bug report that Ant's ftp task
> wouldn't compile against commons-net 2,0 because the IMAGE_FILE_TYPE
> constant was removed from the FTP class.
>
> Given that trunk still has that constant, is trunk in net sort of
> obsolete and we should consider one of the branches as its tip?  If so,
> should we change Gump to build from one of the branches?

Now Net 2.0 has been released we should IMO switch the trunk and branch.

> Gump would have told us about the breakage, which may have been
> important for net as well since the constant has never been deprecated
> and the migration howto claims "no changes necessary" which is obviously
> not true.

>From memory some classes moved package as well.

Niall

> Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org