Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

sebb-2-2
On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Author: bimargulies
> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
> New Revision: 1742534
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
> Log:
> Honor both tagging conventions?

This is potentially confusing.

I think it should have been discussed first.

> Added:
>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

Benson Margulies
I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
done for 2.4?


On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Author: bimargulies
>> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
>> New Revision: 1742534
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Honor both tagging conventions?
>
> This is potentially confusing.
>
> I think it should have been discussed first.
>
>> Added:
>>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

Benedikt Ritter-4
Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
14:06 Uhr:

> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
> done for 2.4?
>

I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
number, but that is a different discussion.

If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
don't see a problem with that.

Benedikt


>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Author: bimargulies
> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
> >> New Revision: 1742534
> >>
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
> >> Log:
> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
> >
> > This is potentially confusing.
> >
> > I think it should have been discussed first.
> >
> >> Added:
> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

sebb-2-2
On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
> 14:06 Uhr:
>
>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
>> done for 2.4?
>>
>
> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
> number, but that is a different discussion.
>
> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
> don't see a problem with that.

I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is
having multiple tags for the same release.

And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate
tags; the current list is:

2.2/
2.3/
2.4/
2.5/
IO_1_0/
IO_1_1/
IO_1_2/
IO_1_3/
IO_1_3_1/
commons-io-1.3.2/
commons-io-1.4/
commons-io-2.0/
commons-io-2.0.1/
commons-io-2.1/
commons-io-2.5/

[For simplicity I have omitted the RCs]

The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem.

And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons.
When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.

> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> Author: bimargulies
>> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
>> >> New Revision: 1742534
>> >>
>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
>> >> Log:
>> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
>> >
>> > This is potentially confusing.
>> >
>> > I think it should have been discussed first.
>> >
>> >> Added:
>> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

sebb-2-2
On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
>> 14:06 Uhr:
>>
>>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
>>> done for 2.4?
>>>
>>
>> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
>> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
>> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
>> number, but that is a different discussion.
>>
>> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
>> don't see a problem with that.
>
> I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is
> having multiple tags for the same release.
>
> And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate
> tags; the current list is:
>
> 2.2/
> 2.3/
> 2.4/
> 2.5/
> IO_1_0/
> IO_1_1/
> IO_1_2/
> IO_1_3/
> IO_1_3_1/
> commons-io-1.3.2/
> commons-io-1.4/
> commons-io-2.0/
> commons-io-2.0.1/
> commons-io-2.1/
> commons-io-2.5/
>
> [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs]
>
> The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem.
>
> And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons.
> When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.

Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM

So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location.

If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that.
But we cannot/must not change history.

>> Benedikt
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> Author: bimargulies
>>> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
>>> >> New Revision: 1742534
>>> >>
>>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
>>> >> Log:
>>> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
>>> >
>>> > This is potentially confusing.
>>> >
>>> > I think it should have been discussed first.
>>> >
>>> >> Added:
>>> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>>> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi,

sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr:

> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
> >> 14:06 Uhr:
> >>
> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
> >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
> >>> done for 2.4?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
> >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
> >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
> >> number, but that is a different discussion.
> >>
> >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
> >> don't see a problem with that.
> >
> > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is
> > having multiple tags for the same release.
> >
> > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate
> > tags; the current list is:
> >
> > 2.2/
> > 2.3/
> > 2.4/
> > 2.5/
> > IO_1_0/
> > IO_1_1/
> > IO_1_2/
> > IO_1_3/
> > IO_1_3_1/
> > commons-io-1.3.2/
> > commons-io-1.4/
> > commons-io-2.0/
> > commons-io-2.0.1/
> > commons-io-2.1/
> > commons-io-2.5/
> >
> > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs]
> >
> > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem.
> >
> > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons.
> > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.
>

That's only true for SVN based components. But as I said, that is a
different discussion :-)


>
> Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM
>
> So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location.
>
> If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that.
> But we cannot/must not change history.
>

Okay, so what is your proposal? Roll back the commit and then vote on a new
convention?

Benedikt


>
> >> Benedikt
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> >> Author: bimargulies
> >>> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
> >>> >> New Revision: 1742534
> >>> >>
> >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
> >>> >> Log:
> >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
> >>> >
> >>> > This is potentially confusing.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think it should have been discussed first.
> >>> >
> >>> >> Added:
> >>> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
> >>> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

sebb-2-2
On 9 May 2016 at 07:43, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr:
>
>> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
>> >> 14:06 Uhr:
>> >>
>> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>> >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
>> >>> done for 2.4?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
>> >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
>> >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
>> >> number, but that is a different discussion.
>> >>
>> >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
>> >> don't see a problem with that.
>> >
>> > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is
>> > having multiple tags for the same release.
>> >
>> > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate
>> > tags; the current list is:
>> >
>> > 2.2/
>> > 2.3/
>> > 2.4/
>> > 2.5/
>> > IO_1_0/
>> > IO_1_1/
>> > IO_1_2/
>> > IO_1_3/
>> > IO_1_3_1/
>> > commons-io-1.3.2/
>> > commons-io-1.4/
>> > commons-io-2.0/
>> > commons-io-2.0.1/
>> > commons-io-2.1/
>> > commons-io-2.5/
>> >
>> > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs]
>> >
>> > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem.
>> >
>> > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons.
>> > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.
>>
>
> That's only true for SVN based components. But as I said, that is a
> different discussion :-)
>
>
>>
>> Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM
>>
>> So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location.
>>
>> If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that.
>> But we cannot/must not change history.
>>
>
> Okay, so what is your proposal? Roll back the commit and then vote on a new
> convention?

Although we don't generally allow tags to be deleted, I think it would
be OK here.
The log message should make it clear what the 'real' tag is called.

A convention needs discussion before a vote.

> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> >> Benedikt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> >> Author: bimargulies
>> >>> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
>> >>> >> New Revision: 1742534
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
>> >>> >> Log:
>> >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > This is potentially confusing.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think it should have been discussed first.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Added:
>> >>> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>> >>> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

Benson Margulies
If you look at the contents of
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/io/tags, you will see
that the _existing convention_, dating back to 2.2, is to use the
maven-release-plugin to create a tag like commons-io-xxx, and then to
later add a tag for xxx.

If someone doesn't like that _existing convention_, someone can start
a vote to change it. And stop accusing me of inappropriate innovation.

I'm done here.



On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9 May 2016 at 07:43, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr:
>>
>>> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
>>> >> 14:06 Uhr:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>>> >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
>>> >>> done for 2.4?
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
>>> >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
>>> >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
>>> >> number, but that is a different discussion.
>>> >>
>>> >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
>>> >> don't see a problem with that.
>>> >
>>> > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is
>>> > having multiple tags for the same release.
>>> >
>>> > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate
>>> > tags; the current list is:
>>> >
>>> > 2.2/
>>> > 2.3/
>>> > 2.4/
>>> > 2.5/
>>> > IO_1_0/
>>> > IO_1_1/
>>> > IO_1_2/
>>> > IO_1_3/
>>> > IO_1_3_1/
>>> > commons-io-1.3.2/
>>> > commons-io-1.4/
>>> > commons-io-2.0/
>>> > commons-io-2.0.1/
>>> > commons-io-2.1/
>>> > commons-io-2.5/
>>> >
>>> > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs]
>>> >
>>> > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem.
>>> >
>>> > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons.
>>> > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.
>>>
>>
>> That's only true for SVN based components. But as I said, that is a
>> different discussion :-)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM
>>>
>>> So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location.
>>>
>>> If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that.
>>> But we cannot/must not change history.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, so what is your proposal? Roll back the commit and then vote on a new
>> convention?
>
> Although we don't generally allow tags to be deleted, I think it would
> be OK here.
> The log message should make it clear what the 'real' tag is called.
>
> A convention needs discussion before a vote.
>
>> Benedikt
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >> Benedikt
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >>> >> Author: bimargulies
>>> >>> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
>>> >>> >> New Revision: 1742534
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
>>> >>> >> Log:
>>> >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > This is potentially confusing.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I think it should have been discussed first.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> Added:
>>> >>> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>>> >>> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1742534 - /commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/

sebb-2-2
On 9 May 2016 at 11:59, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If you look at the contents of
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/io/tags, you will see
> that the _existing convention_, dating back to 2.2, is to use the
> maven-release-plugin to create a tag like commons-io-xxx, and then to
> later add a tag for xxx.

Sorry, but that's not what I see.

Originally IO used IO_m_n[_RCn]

The convention was changed with 1.3.2 to use the default Maven
release:prepare convention, which is artifact-id-version.

This was followed until 2.2, when the names were changed again.

The convention was reverted in 2.5.

I don't see any examples of creating tags of the form M.N from
commons-io-M.N until 2.5

The 2.x tags (apart from 2.5) were all created from 2.x-RCn tags

> If someone doesn't like that _existing convention_, someone can start
> a vote to change it. And stop accusing me of inappropriate innovation.
>
> I'm done here.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 9 May 2016 at 07:43, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr:
>>>
>>>> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> >> Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um
>>>> >> 14:06 Uhr:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires
>>>> >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was
>>>> >>> done for 2.4?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some
>>>> >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My
>>>> >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version
>>>> >> number, but that is a different discussion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I
>>>> >> don't see a problem with that.
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is
>>>> > having multiple tags for the same release.
>>>> >
>>>> > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate
>>>> > tags; the current list is:
>>>> >
>>>> > 2.2/
>>>> > 2.3/
>>>> > 2.4/
>>>> > 2.5/
>>>> > IO_1_0/
>>>> > IO_1_1/
>>>> > IO_1_2/
>>>> > IO_1_3/
>>>> > IO_1_3_1/
>>>> > commons-io-1.3.2/
>>>> > commons-io-1.4/
>>>> > commons-io-2.0/
>>>> > commons-io-2.0.1/
>>>> > commons-io-2.1/
>>>> > commons-io-2.5/
>>>> >
>>>> > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs]
>>>> >
>>>> > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem.
>>>> >
>>>> > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons.
>>>> > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's only true for SVN based components. But as I said, that is a
>>> different discussion :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM
>>>>
>>>> So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that.
>>>> But we cannot/must not change history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, so what is your proposal? Roll back the commit and then vote on a new
>>> convention?
>>
>> Although we don't generally allow tags to be deleted, I think it would
>> be OK here.
>> The log message should make it clear what the 'real' tag is called.
>>
>> A convention needs discussion before a vote.
>>
>>> Benedikt
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Benedikt
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> >>> >> Author: bimargulies
>>>> >>> >> Date: Fri May  6 12:16:39 2016
>>>> >>> >> New Revision: 1742534
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev
>>>> >>> >> Log:
>>>> >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions?
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > This is potentially confusing.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > I think it should have been discussed first.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >> Added:
>>>> >>> >>     commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/
>>>> >>> >>       - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]