commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2016 18:43:50 GMT
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Oliver Heger
<oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de> wrote:

> Take BCEL as an example. There was a strong momentum about half a year
> or so ago to push out a new major release breaking BC. Then discussion
> started to revert breaking changes. This would of course have been the
> ideal solution for all users: getting a new version without migration
> effort. However, the result was that work on reverting changes started,
> but was never finished. The momentum vanished, and the release is still
> overdue. So would it has been better to break BC in this case? I tend to
> say yes.

I don't think that example is very helpful. At least, I don't know how
anyone should have foreseen the outcome.

> Or let's discuss another component: [lang]. The last major release
> happened about 5 years ago. In software business these are ages. So
> would it make sense to start working on a new version focusing on Java 8
> and better support for Lambdas? We could at least start something in an
> experimental branch or the sandbox to experiment with new functionality.
> But it is obviously not our style to do this.

In that case, i'd strongly be in favour of a new release branch (no
need for sandbox) with all the incompatible changes, and a release out
of that branch. As long, as the old branch remains available for minor
maintenance issues.

Jochen

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


Mime
View raw message