Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] API compatibility policy
References: 
 <CALznzY7FDoRUnAd-MyrDBfddKqymQaCwPiyZBvfEApn-XMFFqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ADD8565E-1C42-45A8-9163-F9E12C9D4CA5@gmail.com>
 <CALznzY5tnaRjN9q87Xrxj4hqWSmsSAnEx1J=CJoKQQRHTz4kgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB917R+tWS8BdteWOa-d9bpm1mBV2HE8WrfAu1MgyhcKKHCzmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5253C871.2050307@apache.org> <8738oc5b31.fsf@v35516.1blu.de>
 <CAEQx=x=Jgf1PAFuWzOvXZBHTdnktXFd1cZ+6qw0U1h72MPUfAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Siegfried Goeschl <siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEQx=x=Jgf1PAFuWzOvXZBHTdnktXFd1cZ+6qw0U1h72MPUfAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <ED9B9072-C3F5-40DF-91BD-E4F79E6D190D@it20one.at>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:50:24 +0200
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)

That's a reasonable style of versioning :)=20

I had many issues with binary compatibilty with a commons-email release due t=
o changing the return value from void to a this reference plus some moving o=
f constants. You basically end up with either many restrictions or creating m=
ajor releases

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl

> Am 08.10.2013 um 12:40 schrieb Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@vafer.org>:
>=20
> Cannot remember which component from the top of my head - but it was
> related to package name changes.
>=20
> My style of thinking: x.y.z
>=20
> x - no compatibility
> y - source compatibility
> z - binary compatibility
>=20
> is simple and makes sense.
>=20
> It's OK to put some burden on the users when upgrading - as long as the
> expectations are set correctly.
> But I am pretty sure we discussed that before and some people did not agre=
e.
>=20
> cheers,
> Torsten
>=20
>=20
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrot=
e:
>>=20
>>> On 2013-10-08, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Le 07/10/2013 20:14, Benedikt Ritter a =C3=A9crit :
>>=20
>>>> - loosen API compatibility policy?
>>=20
>>> This topic alone deserves its own thread I think.
>>=20
>>> Ensuring binary/source compatibility is very important.
>>=20
>> +1
>>=20
>> I guess I've done too much ruby with "every bundle update runs the risk
>> of breaking everything" lately.  I really value the stability commons
>> provides.
>>=20
>> That being said, I'm sure there are cases where our policy seems
>> stricter than it needs to be - even though I haven't seen a really
>> difficult case in the one component I contribute to.
>>=20
>> Stefan
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>=20
>>=20

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org