[DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com>]

I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is  
appropriate to raise this issue again given our recent discussion of  
package names and adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re- 
vote on this issue and would be likely to advocate embedding version  
numbers in JAR file names at this point. If no one has any significant  
objections, I will put this to a vote.

Re: [DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>]

Hi to all,
I prefer the current solution, but i understand motivations, so it's
not a problem to add the version number.

Bye,
Sandro

Re: [DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Christopher Brind <br...@brindy.org.uk>]

I agree.

2009/6/5 Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com>

> Right. Also, we already voted on this once and came to an agreement - I
> didn't want anyone to be suprised that we were suddenly revisiting it with a
> new vote, so I started a discussion thread first.
>
> So, let's see if we can get consensus on this. I am in favor of version
> numbers in the file names, and apparently so is Todd. What do others think?
> If we agree, I'd suggest that we make this change in conjunction with the
> package name change and adding src/doc JARs to the binary distribution, and
> do so in the near future.
>
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>
>  This topic was highly contentious last time around, which is probably why
>> Greg was thinking of a vote.  But then again, perhaps opinions have
>> changed.  I was probably the biggest proponent of versioned jars in the
>> past, and my opinion hasn't changed.
>>
>> -T
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
>> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Just to be clear: when there consensus has been achieved, there's no
>>> need for an official vote, unless it is something legally binding such
>>> as new committer, pmc member or release.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (in favor of a vote :) )
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is
>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>
>>>> raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package names and
>>>>> adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this issue
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>
>>>> would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file names
>>>>>
>>>> at
>>>
>>>> this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put this to
>>>>>
>>>> a
>>>
>>>> vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>> Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
>>> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com>]

Right. Also, we already voted on this once and came to an agreement -  
I didn't want anyone to be suprised that we were suddenly revisiting  
it with a new vote, so I started a discussion thread first.

So, let's see if we can get consensus on this. I am in favor of  
version numbers in the file names, and apparently so is Todd. What do  
others think? If we agree, I'd suggest that we make this change in  
conjunction with the package name change and adding src/doc JARs to  
the binary distribution, and do so in the near future.


On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:

> This topic was highly contentious last time around, which is  
> probably why
> Greg was thinking of a vote.  But then again, perhaps opinions have
> changed.  I was probably the biggest proponent of versioned jars in  
> the
> past, and my opinion hasn't changed.
>
> -T
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear: when there consensus has been achieved, there's no
>> need for an official vote, unless it is something legally binding  
>> such
>> as new committer, pmc member or release.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> +1 (in favor of a vote :) )
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is  
>>>> appropriate
>> to
>>>> raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package  
>>>> names and
>>>> adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this  
>>>> issue
>> and
>>>> would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file  
>>>> names
>> at
>>>> this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put  
>>>> this to
>> a
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http:// 
>> wicketinaction.com
>> Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
>> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>]

This topic was highly contentious last time around, which is probably why
Greg was thinking of a vote.  But then again, perhaps opinions have
changed.  I was probably the biggest proponent of versioned jars in the
past, and my opinion hasn't changed.

-T

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to be clear: when there consensus has been achieved, there's no
> need for an official vote, unless it is something legally binding such
> as new committer, pmc member or release.
>
> Martijn
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 (in favor of a vote :) )
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is appropriate
> to
> >> raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package names and
> >> adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this issue
> and
> >> would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file names
> at
> >> this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put this to
> a
> >> vote.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

Just to be clear: when there consensus has been achieved, there's no
need for an official vote, unless it is something legally binding such
as new committer, pmc member or release.

Martijn

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Todd Volkert<tv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (in favor of a vote :) )
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is appropriate to
>> raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package names and
>> adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this issue and
>> would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file names at
>> this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put this to a
>> vote.
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.

Re: [DISCUSS] Version numbers in JAR file names

[Todd Volkert <tv...@gmail.com>]

+1 (in favor of a vote :) )

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Greg Brown <gk...@mac.com> wrote:

> I know we have already voted on this once, but I think it is appropriate to
> raise this issue again given our recent discussion of package names and
> adherence to convention. I would be in favor of a re-vote on this issue and
> would be likely to advocate embedding version numbers in JAR file names at
> this point. If no one has any significant objections, I will put this to a
> vote.
>
>
>