From what I've seen of the discussion on the two issues, the near-worst-case scenario is the addition of a couple of new configuration methods, thus not breaking backwards compatibility on the API. Does that count as API breakage?
> On 02 May 2014, at 20:48, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > > API breakage would be 2.0. Do we know yet that fixing those issue would > send use to 2.0? > > Thanks > > -D > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The question is would fixing these two issues break compatibility? We have >> three compatibility levels: binary, source, and behavior. >> >> I'm guessing we would be ok on source and binary. Would the behavior be >> different enough to mean the version that fixes these should be 2.0? I'm >> guessing no. >> >> Thoughs? Comments? >> >> Gary >> >> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Benedikt Ritter < >> brit...@apache.org> </div><div>Date:05/02/2014 13:00 (GMT-05:00) >> </div><div>To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> </div><div>Subject: Re: [csv] Release planning for commons-csv </div><div> >> </div>So you're saying we should release 1.0 from the current trunk? I >> would >> volunteer to RM. >> >> >> 2014-05-02 16:02 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>: >> >>> +1 to keep the discussion going with or without patches. We need to get a >>> 1.0 out the door. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.r...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Benedikt, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the feedback. My comments are inlined below. >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> 2014-05-02 8:15 GMT+02:00 Gabriel Reid <gabriel.r...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>>> If there are open issues that are specifically standing in the way >> of >>>>>> a release, I would be happy to assist in attempting to resolve them >> if >>>>>> someone can point me in the right direction. >>>>> we are close to a release for a long time now. However we are still >>>> looking >>>>> for a solution to CSV-35 [1] and CSV-58 [2]. There have been long >>>>> discussions around this issues and to me it looks like there still is >>> no >>>>> solution. If you have a smart idea feel free to create a patch. >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing these out. I'll certainly take a look at them in >>>> greater detail to see if there's anything I can see or think of. >>>> >>>>> At commons we are crazy about binary compatibility ;-) We're going >>>> through >>>>> a lot a trouble to make sure you won't run into jar hell when using >> our >>>>> components. This is why you can use commons lang 2.6 alongside >> commons >>>> lang >>>>> 3.3.2 in the same class path. To achieve this, we change the maven >>>>> coordinates as well as the package coordinates when we break binary >>>>> compatibility. >>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> The problem is, even if we declare this release as an alpha release >> or >>>> what >>>>> ever, people will start using it. And all of a sudden you have >>>> commons-csv >>>>> 0.1 in your class path through transitive dependencies but you really >>>> need >>>>> 1.0 which isn't compatible. You're app has been broken by a rushed >> out >>>>> release with an unstable API... >>>> >>>> Understood, and I certainly think that worry about binary >>>> compatibility is a worthy cause (and certainly don't want to try to >>>> convince the project to go against that principle). However, I think >>>> that there are some additional things to consider here as well. >>>> >>>> Both of the blocking issues are over two years old, with very little >>>> activity in the past 6 months. There are currently people making use >>>> of commons-csv by doing things like copying the code into their own >>>> repo, or making their own release build. These are the same users who >>>> are intended to be protected by the promise of binary compatibility, >>>> but they (and projects that make use of their published artifacts) >>>> will suffer from the same consequences that you outlined by breaking >>>> binary incompatibility. >>>> >>>> The argument could of course be made that people shouldn't be doing >>>> things like making their own build or folding the commons-csv code >>>> into their own projects, but the fact is that people are doing this >>>> (just like people will use a 0.1 release, despite any kinds of >>>> warnings about possible future incompatibilites). >>>> >>>> Additionally, the two issues in question are both classified as bugs, >>>> and it appears that both will (or at least could be) eventually be >>>> resolved by adding additional configuration methods. This addition of >>>> additional configuration methods won't break backwards compatibility. >>>> >>>> Basically my points are: >>>> * by delaying a release to protect users, the same users are doing >>>> things which bring the same (or even worse) risks that the delayed >>>> release is supposed to be protecting them from >>>> * it appears to be possible to resolve the two blocking issues in the >>>> future without breaking binary compatibility >>>> >>>> - Gabriel >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition< >>> http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> >> -- >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter >> http://github.com/britter >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
