Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 62E6CB800 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4131 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2012 18:19:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 3985 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2012 18:19:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 3977 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jan 2012 18:19:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:19:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.171] (HELO mail-vx0-f171.google.com) (209.85.220.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:19:48 +0000 Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so13074141vcb.30 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:19:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pi5aZkTZN5GMC95n3pUfJkU983Zo94MIC4Oj/0L0xeo=; b=hObsINRThkjSUC6pLfoavcgshuSK67oly9KJ7CLKvvwJGOZvIv39IPtBteLamvr/mf pVzzhG9kJAk4OyhvyU3IpD+ywxdQiIaEXUn4JeP+VRRjslIdCyDDkTmqQyFp0yScCpW/ 1UlRSy/X/nrIWwdlWQOWBLpuTofAoNcL4ncXE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.106.138 with SMTP id x10mr12108269vco.64.1326219567431; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:19:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.0.129 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:19:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F0C6B34.7050108@gmx.at> References: <4F0C6B34.7050108@gmx.at> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:19:27 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When to create a new major release - Was [VOTE][CANCEL] The vote for commons-email-1.3 based on RC2 in cancelled From: sebb To: Commons Developers List , sgoeschl@gmx.at Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 10 January 2012 16:45, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > the main reason for the failed vote of commons-email-1.3 is that the release > is only source but not binary compatible > > +) if you compile your application with the new version everything is fine > +) if you replace simply the JAR the invocation fails > > Is it mandatory that a minor release is binary compatible with the previous > one or do I have to create a new major version? There is a lot of ugly stuff > (mainly protected member variables) which should be done but is currently > not in the scope of this release. If the jar is not a drop-in replacement for the previous version, then yes, IMO that requires a major release. [1] The only possible exception might be if the incompatibilities are in internal parts of the API, i.e. classes/methods etc. that are not used externally. Note also that a binary incompatibility involving the external API will also require the package name to be changed (which in turn requires the Maven coordinates to be changed). The package name change is required because there can be only one instance of a class in a single class loader. See discussion here [2] [1] http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html [2] http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MavenGroupIDChange#Classpath_considerations > Feedback appreciated > > Siegfried Goeschl > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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