On 10/30/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Sandy McArthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If we want to come up with the notion of a "super" version, something > that is more broad than a "major" version and includes non-backwards > compatible changes I'm fine with that. > > But mandating that any major release be completely non-backwards > compatible is silly. So what does a major version mean? Surely a major version means "we have changed the code so it is no longer compatible, you cannot upgrade simlpy and easily"
Not necessarily, no. It could just as easily mean "we've added a boatload of functionality that adds so much to the component that we feel a major version bump is warranted". -- Martin Cooper
Occasional drastic pruning of code is needed to keep it healthy and > manageable. But we should not be eager to run out and break > compatibility without deliberate and compelling reasons. I agree that we should not run out and break compatibility without deliberate and compelling reasons. In fact, I'd suggest that one of the beneficial side-effects of adopting this as a policy would be that we would all be more reticent about making those incompatible changes, leading to more minor and compatible releases - which I would argue is a Good Thing. I'll admit its less fun though. Is that what the negative viewpoint here is? Or is it just that the negatives have never faced jar hell? At the moment, I haven't heard any debate of the validity of the problem, or alternatives to the solution/ Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
