Am 24.11.2010 21:17, schrieb Luc Maisonobe:
> Le 24/11/2010 20:43, James Carman a écrit :
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ralph Goers
>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree. The "rule" should be that a new package and artifactId is required
when compatibility is broken, not when a version change occurs. Exceptions should be based
on that policy, not on a version change occurs.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so how about we change the rule? We could say "if the binary
>> compatibility is broken, then the package/artifactId must change."
>
> +1 for the rule as stated here.
>
> Luc
+1 I would also sign this.
Oliver
>
>> Again, this rule can be broken if a component feels they need to do so
>> and they provide a very good reason. :)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
|