Community
Participate
Working Groups
We use Apache Commons Lang 3.1. It's a placement of Commons Lang 2.x but with a different namespace (org.apache.commons.lang3 instead of lang). I think it makes sense to put this orbit as org.apache.commons.lang3. I'd offer to maintain this package. CQ: https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5902
technology.hudson is using it too.
Sounds great! Don't forget to open a new CQ for "add to Orbit". piggy backing on the recommenders CQ (5902). ... I'm wondering if/how 'hudson' had a cq ... they should, if they use it. (I think your committer ship has gone through already, right? If not ... will finish soon? So, happy to have you volunteer for this one too).
(In reply to comment #2) > ... Don't forget to open a new CQ for "add to Orbit". piggy backing > on the recommenders CQ (5902). I see you did already ... now that I'm catching up with my mail. :)
Seeking advice: With version 3.1 the bundle-symbolicname changed from org.apache.commons.lang to org.apache.commons.lang3. I reused the existing org.apache.commons.lang namespace in Orbit but I wonder whether this violates a policy at Orbit. David, should I create a completely new module org.apache.commons.lang3 instead of reusing the "old" org.apache.commons.lang? I'd say no since this version scheme leads to "one project per major version" but given your experience you may have a better policy...
(In reply to Marcel Bruch from comment #4) > Seeking advice: > > With version 3.1 the bundle-symbolicname changed from > org.apache.commons.lang to org.apache.commons.lang3. I reused the existing > org.apache.commons.lang namespace in Orbit but I wonder whether this > violates a policy at Orbit. > > David, > should I create a completely new module org.apache.commons.lang3 instead of > reusing the "old" org.apache.commons.lang? I'd say no since this version > scheme leads to "one project per major version" but given your experience > you may have a better policy... So, you are saying the "third party" picked the name org.apache.commons.lang3 for their bundle? If so, we should try do what they did. The idea is that we may not be the only one producing/using these "in the wild" so we'd want someone who wrote code for "their" version to work with ours. And what about package names, are they the same (roughly) as before? If you are asking strictly about "cvs" module name (vs. branch under old namespace) I don't think it matters much. If they changed bundle name and package names, I'd probably have separate cvs module. If the package names are the same as before, I'd probably stick with new branch of old module, though admit, either way would be confusing. (Since one of the few cases it bundle id does not match the module name) So 6 of one, half dozen of another.
(In reply to David Williams from comment #5) > So, you are saying the "third party" picked the name > org.apache.commons.lang3 for their bundle? Yes. > And what about package names, are they the same (roughly) as before? They changed it from o.a.c.lang to o.a.c.lang3 (as in the bundle-symbolicname). > If you are asking strictly about "cvs" module name (vs. branch under old > namespace) I don't think it matters much. Okay. According to your recommendation I should have created a new CVS module instead of just creating a new branch. Please let me know if you want this to be changed to a new module (I'm fine with any decision). Thanks.
(In reply to Marcel Bruch from comment #6) > (In reply to David Williams from comment #5) > > So, you are saying the "third party" picked the name > > org.apache.commons.lang3 for their bundle? > > Yes. > > > And what about package names, are they the same (roughly) as before? > > They changed it from o.a.c.lang to o.a.c.lang3 (as in the > bundle-symbolicname). > > > If you are asking strictly about "cvs" module name (vs. branch under old > > namespace) I don't think it matters much. > > Okay. According to your recommendation I should have created a new CVS > module instead of just creating a new branch. Please let me know if you want > this to be changed to a new module (I'm fine with any decision). Thanks. No, I don't think any need to re-work. Might want to make a "note" in the IP log or something, but other wise I'm sure people can find it in the future.
In Orbit now.
(In reply to Marcel Bruch from comment #8) > In Orbit now. whew ... hope you documented all you learned :)
