commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [math] roadmap for 2.X and 3.0 ?
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:34:32 GMT

> If you break compatibility, then the advisable thing to do is change
> the package name (and artifactId, etc.).  Now, if we can be almost
> certain that there would be no case that you wouldn't have a situation
> come up where two different, incompatible versions of math would be
> required on the classpath (you guys can't think of a situation where
> one project might use two different libraries that use two different
> version of math?),

Wouldn't it mean that at least one of the two libraries is not an active
project? Otherwise I'd think they would benefit from upgrading.

Another aspect is that, by making it possible, we would encourage "lazy"
users to not upgrade, and would thus loose them as "testers" of the new

It's nice to help users[1] but we should not forget that we can be confident
in the code only if it is largely used. Bugs in the "linear" package went
unnoticed until a real-world code stressed it.
So, I'm not sure that, at this point, we can afford "lazy" users ;-) [I'm
playing the devil's advocate here.]

> [...]


[1] I would be the first to have a little less work as a result of the name

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

View raw message