commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [OGNL] startup questions
Date Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:11 GMT
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 11 May 2011 14:51, Jochen Wiedmann <> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb <> wrote:
>>> However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package
>>> name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed.
>> That's not different from a new major release in commons. If you
>> anticipate the necessity of binary changes, consider creating a
>> maintenance branch and a new branch anyways.
> +1, but my concern is not about SVN branches.
>>> Depending on incubator code is akin to depending on alpha code, i.e.
>>> the user should be prepared for API instability.
>> Why so?
> Since incubation generally means new eyes looking at the code, it
> seems likely that any API problems are quite likely to be found in
> incubation.
> Probably more so than afterwards.

It's mostly about incubating the community, not the code. I think your
'seems likely' is fair, but it wouldn't apply to existing products and
wouldn't lead to your more bombastic original statement.

>> In contrary, I'd suggest to have the "early release" based on
>> a stable branch for that very reason.
> But if problems are found with the API, there is no such thing as a
> stable branch.

It's a mature codebase. Ignore the incubator aspect and work on the
next version as if it was already in commons and/or had never changed
its location.

+1 to moving to the next major version; technically no reason but it
does have good community reasons such that the change of source is
clear and well communicated.


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

View raw message