This is an important discussion to have. I think we should adopt the semantic versioning policy outlined in the OSGi Alliance whitepaper: http://www.osgi.org/wiki/uploads/Links/SemanticVersioning.pdf . This includes guidelines on bundle versioning as well as packages. I also prefer trying to keep backward compatibility where practicable.
Regards, Graham. On 3 June 2010 10:13, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Based on some updates to the JPA container we are considering making some > changes to some SPI classes. Obviously this would mean that we needed to > chagne the version of the package, but I wanted to raise a discussion on the > list about our versioning policy. Are we trying to keep version to version > compatability where possible, and if so, how hard? Are we planning to change > package versions every release (which appears to be what the pom files say)? > > Similarly for bundle versions, if there are no changes to a bundle between > releases (for example if the JPA blueprint integration didn't change but the > container added support for weaving) then will the bundle version be changed > anyway? If there are only minor bugfix changes to the bundle will it still > change major version on release? > > > I know that my preference would be for a strict package versioning policy, > and trying to keep backward compatability wherever possible. I can't think of > anything more annoying than having to re-write or re-build plugins and > extensions for every release. I'm less concerned by bundle versions, but I > would lean toward not changing them more often than necessary. > > What do people think? > > Regards, > > Tim > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ > We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us > now
