They would need to change together to be of any use obviously.
On Nov 24, 2010 3:55 PM, "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
