On 4/7/06, Cris Daniluk <cris.danilu..mail.com> wrote:
> I think I suggested this before, and it may be a bit more effort than we are
> willing to undertake at this point, but I think it may be beneficial to
> release a 1.2 "Apache" release at some point in time.
>
> My reasoning is that while we should keep the "org.objectstyle" packages in
> tact in 1.2, users may have an easier migration path if they can move to
> Apache packages in one release, then to new potentially incompatible
> functionality in the next. Acegi drove me crazy when they did their package
> rename along with class renames. It took me a ridiculous amount of time to
> migrate a small application. Then again, with Spring, what is ever
> easy......................... :)
>
> Whether or not we do that, I do think SF for 1.2 and Apache/SVN for 2.0 is
> the right approach. For purposes of migration and preserving VCS history, we
> are still going to want to import the org.objectstyle packages and then
> migrate them from inside SVN, but we can branch and deadend the
> org.objectstyle code line after the rename is complete.. thus, it will feel
> like a "donation".
I'm with Cris on this. +1 for migrating all history into apache SVN.
+1 for a "repackaging" release of cayenne with a minimal amount of
code changes. I think doing this right after the 1.2 release makes a
great deal of sense. I'd recommend calling it 2.0 rather than "apache
1.2" though since it's no longer backwards compatible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Apr 07 2006 - 10:40:37 EDT