From dev-return-89114-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@sling.apache.org Mon Jun 4 17:39:58 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id C6A78180636 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:39:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 61374 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2018 15:39:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@sling.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@sling.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@sling.apache.org Received: (qmail 61362 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2018 15:39:56 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) (207.244.88.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 15:39:56 +0000 Received: from [10.136.162.213] (unknown [193.105.140.131]) by mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 502872A28 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <43c30fac4c8d7ab7508603a17fc6a9c2bc6eba2e.camel@apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Sling API version 3.0.0 From: Robert Munteanu To: dev@sling.apache.org Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 18:39:51 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1528116501.3995254.1395631616.433BDB14@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1528073012.2134003.1395075896.1C5787B6@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1528116501.3995254.1395631616.433BDB14@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Jason E Bailey wrote: > The major version change is from a release perspective. The only > change to the versioning which OSGi uses is > org.apache.sling.api.resource which went from 2.11 to 2.12 > > Ioan brought up the issue as part of the pull request that the > upgrade to jdk 8 is a significant change. If someone is running > sling on a jdk 7 environment then this release will be broken for > them. I looked around at other Apache projects and there seems to be > a trend that upgrades to JRE support results in a major release > upgrade. > > This would also allow support, if there was ever a need, to do a > release for the jdk7 version after this release. This is not our current practice - we bumped versions from 5 to 6 and 7 without bumping major versions so I'd suggest we keep doing that. I think the bigger suprise would be that we increase the major version component without an actual breaking change :-) Thanks, Robert