continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Trygve Laugstøl <tryg...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [vote] merge id-refactor branch changes
Date Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:44:40 GMT
Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
> Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
>>
>> 1.0 to a 1.1 is not the time when you break an API. You can add stuff 
>> with minor released, but not break things. This is the versioning 
>> conventions used for all Maven-related projects. Perhaps trunk should 
>> be 2.0, but as long as it's 1.1 it can't break the API.
>>
> 
> Well, in the Java world, this convention (While good) is not very well 
> followed.  I agree, however, that 1.1. should be backwards compatible in 
> a good versioning system, so I support your notion that trunk should be 
> 2.0.  I think there is enough change that is substantial enough in 
> operation and features that 2.x is probably a more useful description.  
> This isn't a small increment in functionality.

It is the standard we've been following for years.

IMO there isn't a whole lot of features, just a bunch of (very useful) 
enhancements. To me there is no reason to break the existing API as from 
what I can tell there haven't been any fundamental changes in the APIs 
and concepts on how Continuum works.

This is in no way meant as a critique to all the hard work all the guys 
has been putting in Continuum. I've heard nothing but good stuff from 
all the people I have gotten to try out Continuum trunk, many who are 
still running it in production. I thank all of you for your hard work!

--
Trygve

Mime
View raw message