On 6 October 2010 16:20, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton > <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread >> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that >> think it should be 2.0. So far there are five who think 1.5 (Jörg, >> James, Michael, Paul & Matt). So people disagree. Its OK to have a >> massive debate on this, but I would much rather spend my time on >> something less trivial than version number ideology. >> > > The problem is that you're causing some inconsistency. Bumping major > version numbers without changing package name/artifactId doesn't go > along with what Apache Commons has come up with as a "best practice" > or sorts. Jumping to 2.0 also carries with it an assumption of binary > incompatibility for most users.
Not necessarily. A major version change might be justified if the code was significantly updated, e.g. to add major new functionality. However, I agree that changing package name or Maven G:A does require a major version change. BTW, the reason that I think changing the minimum JVM warrants a major version change is that the code is no longer a drop-in replacement for users who are on the minimum Java version. But this probably depends on the user base for that Java version. If IO had been changed to require Java 6 when it first came out, I suspect that most of you would have insisted on a major version change. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
