search

mirage-sql / mirage

Mirage-SQL - the SQL Centric Database Access Library for Java
Apache License 2.0
59 stars 24 forks source link

Update group id #42

Closed takezoe closed 7 years ago

takezoe commented 7 years ago

@aadrian package name hasn't been updated to com.miragesql.

aadrian commented 7 years ago

package name hasn't been updated to com.miragesql.

Not in the sources, only in the mvn descriptor for now.

Since changing the sources would break existing software, there should be a major not minor version update for this, and I would like to write a Migration Guide first.

aadrian commented 7 years ago

@takezoe a first version of the Migration Guide: https://github.com/mirage-sql/mirage/wiki/Migration-Guide

takezoe commented 7 years ago

@aadrian Thanks. I felt 2 step migration might be redundant. How about updating to 2.0.0 directly, not through 1.3.x?

aadrian commented 7 years ago

Well, I already updated libraries and Java to 8 for 1.3.0 (so it's not just a version bump) and I'm in the process of aquiring a Nexus ORG for com.sqlmirage (since it can't publish to the old one): https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/OSSRH-30759

The 1.3.0 might redundant but it's a simple drop in replacement as opposed to 2.0.0 that requires user code changes since imports must be updated too.

takezoe commented 7 years ago

Well, I already updated libraries and Java to 8 for 1.3.0 (so it's not just a version bump) and I'm in the process of aquiring a Nexus ORG for com.sqlmirage (since it can't publish to the old one): https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/OSSRH-30759

Thanks. Do you mean we will continue to maintain 1.3.x for existing users who can't move to 2.0.0? That's reasonable. I will update the subject of this issue to just "Update group id" and close again.

and naming of 1.x branch may be confusing a little, because 1.3.0 is not on 1.x branch despite it's matching 1.x.

aadrian commented 7 years ago

Do you mean we will continue to maintain 1.3.x for existing users who can't move to 2.0.0?

Yes, for a while. There are many extensions (priavate) that depend on the old package naming so keeping that for a while (until the project is split in modules at least) makes sense IMHO.

and naming of 1.x branch may be confusing a little

Indeed. I'll delete it and when 2.0.0 will be out, I'll make a new branch: 1.3.x

takezoe commented 7 years ago

Thanks. All became clear.