On 10/13/13 9:05 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2013-10-13, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> I am sorry. I forgot one other thing to verify. The clirr report >> complains about dropping a field. Is this spurious / not really an >> issue? > Ah yes, I should have talked about that. > > It is a protected field in the Tar*Stream classes which should have > never been protected but was for hisorical reasons. > > When the change was made a few month ago we concluded it would be > extremely unlikely that subclasses of said streams existed that used it, > in particular since the type of the protected field was a package > private class (TarBuffer). > > The implementation has been changed considerably and the TarBuffer class > has even been removed - so if this change blocks the release the only > mitigation will be to revert the changes completely. I'm fully prepared > to do that, if necessary.
Thanks, Stefan. This is a good example of the "relaxing" of backward compat requirements that I think we need to allow. I am +1 for allowing the break without major version bump / package-munging in this case. Phil > > 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
