Hi Oliver, [snip]
Oliver Heger wrote: > This is pretty much the reaction I was hoping for :-) > > So I will probably follow this road. This is a good opportunity for a > refactoring and polishing of some interfaces and base > classes. Because > we will have major changes, changing the package name (maybe to > o.a.c.configuration2?) will certainly make sense. I'd go for o.a.c.configuration2 here. > It would be good however to handle this commons-wide in a > consistent way. The question is: Should we start again with 1.0 for such a component or do we align the number in the package with the major number if we expect a completely incompatible package? Example for a version histories: - with aligned major number: o.a.c.configuration: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 o.a.c.configuration2: 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4.0 o.a.c.configuration5: 5.0, 5.1 - with resetted number: o.a.c.configuration: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 o.a.c.configuration2: 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0 o.a.c.configuration3: 1.0, 1.1 ?? - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
