Re: [orbit-dev] Including a new version of an Orbit bundle.

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi ... here's some quick answers .. 


> However, I have a couple of trivial questions to the group:
> - The LPG runtime v2.0.17 has some differences in the namespace of
> the packages which contains, so a probably better name for  the
> bundle could be "net.sourceforge.lpg.runtime". However,
since the 
> library itself is an evolution of its predecessor (LPG v1.0 and v.1.
> 1), I think that I should better create a new branch for the 
> (probably worst named for LPG v2.0.17) 
> net.sourceforge.lpg.lpgjavaruntime bundle. An addition opinion about
> this would be welcomed.

I'm not exactly sure what your question is. What the bundle
should be named? 
Or the cvs module?  And choices are
net.sourceforge.lpg.runtime vs. net.sourceforge.lpg.lpgjavaruntime?
Part of the answer might depend on how consumers view
it, and plan to use it. 
Such as, if they already pre-req 'net.sourceforge.lpg.runtime',
would 
they expect to continue to pre-req that, and just change
version ranges, 
or would they view this new release as something different,
and new, 
and would be natural to remove old prereq entry and include
new name? 


> - I'm quite sure that the IP process will be successfully
passed, 
> since Robert has already done it with similar LPGv2.0.x versions.
> Could I create the correspondent 2_0_17 branch in the CVS or should
> I wait until IP approval ?

You need to wait until approved. You never can tell. 
If you mean "final approval", that it has been
tentatively approved under parallel IP rules, then 
yes, you can create it, put it in cvs, but you need to
make a note in the ip xml file that is 
is tentative and under parallel IP process.