On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:43 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > 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." > Again, this rule can be broken if a component feels they need to do so > and they provide a very good reason. :)
How about "if a component decides on a package rename, then the maven artifactId must change"? If a component breaks binary compatibility and chooses not to do a package rename then changing the maven artifact doesn't help in any way and will just mean additoinal pom config might be required to exclude the old artifact. Niall --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
