In my mind, name vs. name2 makes sense seems for a next generation based on new code rather than a next version.
Thank you, Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sandy > McArthur > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:41 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Major versions require package name change > > On 10/29/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PROPOSAL: > > The major version number of a component, where it is greater than 1, > > shall be included in the package name. > > I gotta disagree with this. > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > Sandy McArthur > > "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." > - Thomas Paine > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
