On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward > >>>>>>>>> compatibility, versioning and RERO: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically > >>>>>>>>> adhere > >>>>>>>>> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0, > >>>>>>>>> 5.1... but even-numbered lines can include breaks - > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ... > >>> This sounds awfully complicated for my puny human brain. > >> How, exactly? Seems pretty simple to me. The even-numbered release > >> lines may have compat breaks; but the odd-numbered do not. > >>> It's bad enough that I have to remember how each FOSS project treats > >>> versions numbers, but having an exception within a Commons component is > >>> even worse. This is a non-starter for me. > >> Do you have any better suggestions? The problem we are trying to > >> solve is we can't RERO while sticking to the normal compat rules > >> without turning major versions all the time, which forces users to > >> repackage all the time and us to support more versions concurrently > >> than we have bandwidth to do. > >> > > I do not see how a different version scheme will determine how many > > branches the community supports. > > If we just keep one 4.x branch that keeps cutting (possibly > incompatible) releases, that is just one line, one branch. If we > have to cut 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 as 4, 5, 6 instead and we don't allow any > compat breaks, we end up having to maintain and release 4.0.1, > 5.0.1, 6.0.1 instead of just 4.3.1, for example, or we just strand > the 4, 5 users in terms of bug fixes as we move on to 6. > > > > Breaking BC without a package and coord change is a no-go. > > We have done this before and we will probably do it again - and more > if we have to don't separate out an unstable line. > > You have to > > think about this jar as a dependency that can be deeply nested in a > > software stack. Commons components are such creatures. I unfortunately > run > > into this more than I'd like: Big FOSS project A depends on B which > depends > > on C. Then I want to integrate with Project X which depends on Y which > > depends on different versions of B and C. Welcome to jar hell if B and C > > are not compatible. If B and C follow the rule of break-BC -> new > > package/coords, then all is well. > > The mitigation here is that we would not expect the even-numbered > releases to be deployed widely. > Respectfully Phil, my point is that while this might be true, it is in practice irrelevant. We cannot control the spread of our jars and their usage, hence the importance of BC. Gary > > Phil > > > > Gary > > > > > >> Phil > >>> Gary > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > > -- 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
