On 4 September 2011 20:04, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all guys, > the clirr report has just been updated on my personal ASF space[1], > can you review please?
As it stands, 2.0 is not strictly binary compatible with 1.2. However, it depends whether the changes affect the published API, or are internal changes that should not affect external code. For example, the "commands" field - is there a use case for external code? Or is just an implementation detail? I don't know the code or how it is used, so it is difficult to say, but IMO there are some binary incompatibilities that can be ignored. e.g. the old code defined a string field that was supposed to be constant, but failed to use final. If there is no valid use case for changing the value of the constant, then I think there is a case for allowing that, even though it is not strictly compatible - if code does write to the field then that code is broken anyway. > I think it's time to call a vote to accept the current branch as the > trunk, WDYT? > Many thanks in advance, have anice day! > Simo > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/chain/clirr-report.html > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.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
