commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:10:21 GMT
On 6 October 2010 16:20, James Carman <> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <> wrote:
>> There are four people who think 2.0 (Stephen and myself in this thread
>> and Sebb and Dennis in the previous thread back in March[1]) that
>> think it should be 2.0. So far there are five who think 1.5 (Jörg,
>> James, Michael, Paul & Matt). So people disagree. Its OK to have a
>> massive debate on this, but I would much rather spend my time on
>> something less trivial than version number ideology.
> The problem is that you're causing some inconsistency.  Bumping major
> version numbers without changing package name/artifactId doesn't go
> along with what Apache Commons has come up with as a "best practice"
> or sorts.  Jumping to 2.0 also carries with it an assumption of binary
> incompatibility for most users.

Not necessarily. A major version change might be justified if the code
was significantly updated, e.g. to add major new functionality.

However, I agree that changing package name or Maven G:A does require
a major version change.

BTW, the reason that I think changing the minimum JVM warrants a major
version change is that the code is no longer a drop-in replacement for
users who are on the minimum Java version. But this probably depends
on the user base for that Java version. If IO had been changed to
require Java 6 when it first came out, I suspect that most of you
would have insisted on a major version change.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message