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.
same 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
IMO the above is more straight forward than the following...
- 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
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
