You can break BC all you want when you do it in a NEW package. For example lang3.
Gary On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:41, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote: > Cannot remember which component from the top of my head - but it was > related to package name changes. > > My style of thinking: x.y.z > > x - no compatibility > y - source compatibility > z - binary compatibility > > is simple and makes sense. > > It's OK to put some burden on the users when upgrading - as long as the > expectations are set correctly. > But I am pretty sure we discussed that before and some people did not agree. > > cheers, > Torsten > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 2013-10-08, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> >>> Le 07/10/2013 20:14, Benedikt Ritter a écrit : >> >>>> - loosen API compatibility policy? >> >>> This topic alone deserves its own thread I think. >> >>> Ensuring binary/source compatibility is very important. >> >> +1 >> >> I guess I've done too much ruby with "every bundle update runs the risk >> of breaking everything" lately. I really value the stability commons >> provides. >> >> That being said, I'm sure there are cases where our policy seems >> stricter than it needs to be - even though I haven't seen a really >> difficult case in the one component I contribute to. >> >> Stefan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
