Hi Benedikt, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi, > > we do seem to have different opinions when it comes to binary > compatibility and how it should be handled. Usually we would say "this > should be decided on a component basis". However this discussion is coming > up again and again and I think we should try the impossible and agree on > something that we can document. > > So here is my view on the topic: > > - since our components are depended upon by a lot of projects, we need to > take special care regarding compatibility. > - we must not break BC in a release that could collide with an earlier > version. In other words, when we break BC, we have to change package and > maven coordinates. > - BUT since we're all doing this on our spare time, there is no need to > hold on old APIs just for the sake of it. For this reason, BC may be > broken any time, if the steps above a followed and it has been discussed > on the ML. Fixes can always be backported to old releases, by people who > need it. - If there are committers who are willing to work on old version > and committers who want to work on API redesigns, we can branch and work > in paralell. > - Changing the Java Language requirement does not break BC and can > therefore be done without pumping the major version. > > What is your view on the topic? +1 We need a fine balance between BC requirement and ongoing development and you nicely summed it up. Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
