Am 24.11.2010 21:17, schrieb Luc Maisonobe:
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
+1 I would also sign this.
Oliver
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
