I can see filling in a small section for source compatibility but behavioral compatibility is just too vague.
I kind of like inaging1 even if it is weird and even though we do not have a precedent here in Commons. I'm curious what others think. Gary On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 18:58 Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote: > Good stuff Gary! Couple questions. > > Q1/ Will there be a follow-up post on behavioral compatibility too? :) > > Q2/ Only component I'm working (meaning pushing for a release soon-ish) on > at the moment is [imaging] for some IIIF related stuff. Should we rename > the package from o.a.c.imaging to something like o.a.c.imaging1, preparing > for the 1.0 full release (it's still alpha)? > > > Thanks! > > Bruno > > > > > > > On Monday, 15 June 2020, 1:42:18 am NZST, Gary Gregory < > garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > In order to avoid posting the same answer here and on GitHib over and over, > I tried to explain BC here: > > https://garygregory.wordpress.com/2020/06/14/how-we-handle-binary-compatibility-at-apache-commons/ > > Feedback is most welcome. > > Gary > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
