Luc Maisonobe wrote: > 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.
+1 - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
