commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [SCXML] Next major version number required package rename needed?
Date Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:54:23 GMT
It wouldn't look so funky that way.  I'm cool with that.

On Thursday, October 10, 2013, Niall Pemberton wrote:

> I would bump to version 2.0 because I dont think its clear that going from
> 0.9 to 1.0 is a major version change - in my mind 0.9 seems to imply "we
> haven't quite completed everything we want to for 1.0"
>
> Niall
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:52 AM, James Carman
> <james@carmanconsulting.com <javascript:;>>wrote:
>
> > Now, this case is a bit weird, since we have released code in a < 1.0
> > version number.  So, the artifact/package will have to be scxml1,
> > which looks funky IMHO.  I guess that follows the pattern, though.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
> > > On 10/11/2013 01:41 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If you are breaking backward compatibility then you need to do the
> > renames
> > >> (package, and artifactId).
> > >
> > >
> > > That was my impression already.
> > > And I have no real issue with doing so.
> > >
> > > But again, when has this been decided and has it ever been formalized
> > > (written down) somewhere?
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if we ever landed on a "rule" about the new JDK level
> > >> scenario, though.
> > >
> > > Okay, maybe that was just an incorrect assumption.
> > >
> > > And it doesn't really matter as there will be breaking API changes
> needed
> > > for the next version of SCXML, so we'll have to bump the major version
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday, October 10, 2013, Ate Douma wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 10/11/2013 01:16 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Commons SCXML has only one reverse dependency in Maven Central,
> > >>>> flexistate, so I wouldn't bother with the binary compatibility
and
> > just
> > >>>> keep the package as is.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm. That might be the only reverse dependency of artifacts also
> > deployed
> > >>> to Maven Central, but I'm pretty sure SCXML 0.9 is used in plenty of
> > >>> projects which might be impacted still.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would expect stronger arguments to decide yes/no if a package
> rename
> > is
> > >>> required or not. This would seem a bit (too) arbitrary to me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mind you, I'd prefer not having to do a package rename, but I got the
> > >>> impression there are more explicit 'rules' when to do so.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I'd still would like to hear more explicitly if such a rule is
> > >>> defined,
> > >>> and if so how it is worded and where. But of course if there is none,
> > >>> fine
> > >>> by me :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks, Ate
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> http://mvnrepository.com/**artifact/commons-scxml/**commons-scxml/0.9
> > <http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/commons-scxml/commons-scxml/0.9>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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-

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message