Le 24/11/2010 20:43, James Carman a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ralph Goers > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> I disagree. The "rule" should be that a new package and artifactId is >> required when compatibility is broken, not when a version change occurs. >> Exceptions should be based on that policy, not on a version change occurs. >> > > Ok, so how about we change the rule? We could say "if the binary > compatibility is broken, then the package/artifactId must change."
+1 for the rule as stated here. Luc > Again, this rule can be broken if a component feels they need to do so > and they provide a very good reason. :) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
