Personnally, I'm fine with "jdbm2" in the package naming.  And I think we'd be better keeping jdbm 1.x in a separate branch.

Let's reuse what we want and leave the rest back where it belongs.


Kevin Day wrote:
There's going to be an aweful lot that winds up in the dustbin on this one...  Some classes will come across (managed btree, for example), but a lot of things need changing.  I'm certainly fine with starting with existing code, but I'd rather do it in a new environment without old dependencies to worry about.
It seems like we are going to be changing the API semantics sufficiently to where a new package name would be appropriate, etc...  I'm certainly open to alternatives...
If we did an in-place update, I think I'd still want to see a completely separate folder structure for jdbm2 to keep things clean...  what do you think?