On 15 November 2010 01:38, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:34 PM, sebb wrote: > >> >> >> IMO it's important to ensure that the package change really is necessary. >> > > Somehow I thought that was accomplished by the last release candidate failing > to get the required votes due to the package name not being changed. If the > recommendation had been made to make the API binary compatible I would have > done that instead of going and renaming the package. I'm getting tired of > wasting my time.
AIUI, the root cause of the failure was due to the binary incompatibility. Change of package name is one solution. I don't think it's necessarily the best solution here. It may well turn out to be fairly easy to keep binary compatibility - or indeed maybe some API breaks are in classes/methods that are not intended for external use. If not, then yes, package change will be required, and all downstream users will have to adapt. > Ralph > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
