On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:51 PM, sebb wrote: > 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.
How do you intend to determine this? Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
