On 19 April 2011 09:33, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote: > >> * source compatibility for x.*.* > > Disagreed. I can quote numerous examples of application servers that > come with varying versions of commons-foo, even within my employers > house. Your proposal would mean that I had to create varying jar files > of the applications shared library, depending on the application > server.
I agree that we should strive for source compatibility within a major release. There may be some source changes that could be allowed (e.g. dropping an obsolete constant) within a major release, but in general I agree we should have a major version bump for updates that require source changes. > I am quite happy with our current policy, that we either maintain > binary compatibility or change the package name. OTOH, I do support > every attempt to drop old stuff by doing the latter. Agreed in principle, but not if there are drip feed changes. We should not expect downstream users to change to a new binary API (new package) more than (say) once a year, if that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
