I tend to agree that 2.0 should allow backwards incompatible changes. If it is simply adding generics and cleaning up code, it deserves a 1.5 version number. That's how I see it anyway.
Paul On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Michael Wooten <mwooten....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey All, > > As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg > that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary > compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release > would be a major change (dropping backwards compatibility, removing > deprecated code, using incompatible 1.5 features, etc.). The new > refinements sound more like an extension to the 1.4 release to me, so > 1.5 makes more sense. > > Will there be a point in the future where IO will be removing > deprecated code and dropping backwards compatibility? If so, what > release of IO will that be? That sounds more like a 2.0 release to me, > but that's my opinion. > > -Michael > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Niall Pemberton > <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Nial wrote: >>>>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and >>>>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that >>>>> starting point: >>>>> >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/46dos5wjdfhcr5nr >>>>> >>>>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of >>>>> that debate ended up about maven groupIds: >>>>> >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/flsmdalzs6tjv3va >>>>> >>>>> It is arbitrary though - my preference is for 2.0 since it makes it >>>>> easy to remember which releases were for JDK 1.3 and which for JDK >>>>> 1.5. Also it seems like moving to JDK 1.5 warrants more of a version >>>>> change than +0.1 >>> >>> >>> James Carman wrote: >>>> So, call it 1.5 >>> >>> Hehehe. >>> >>> Seriously, we have switched the minimal JDK requirement often between minor >>> versions (most prominent case is DBCP) and kept Maven G:A as long as it is >>> binary compatible. Comparing the gap from lang 2.x to lang 3.x, it looks >>> strange to me switching for io from 1.x to 2.0. >> >> I guess it is a bit arbitrary - but then I think each component makes >> the decision on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't seem strange to me >> and I prefer 2.0 than 1.5. Also it leaves room if we ever want to >> release a bug-fix for the JDK 1.3 branch. I know thats unlikely, >> although Jukka did talk of doing this for Jackrabbit >> >> http://markmail.org/message/ijeuxvemzmdzuw3s >> >>> What would be your intention as a normal user with this versioning? >>> Would you use it as drop in replacement? >> >> Its drop in except you now need a later JDK version. Anyway, I would >> hope they would read the release notes: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0-rc2/site/upgradeto2_0.html >> >> ...and be pleasantly surprised that it is a drop in replacement :) >> >> I do think it from a user PoV it does make it easier to remember which >> version the JDK change happened and I think it likely users would find >> it strange that a change in JDK version only warranted a +0.1 in >> version number. >> >> Niall >> >>> - Jörg >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
