On 10/30/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/30/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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"
>
> I was thinking the same thing - we define major version as a
> non-backwards compatible API change.
>
> A lot of people (as Martin pointed out) bump the major version because
> they've added a lot to the API - but we've not done that that often
> and I'm tempted to think we should mandate that that doesn't happen.
Why is it necessary to mandate such a thing?
To make it easier to define what the version number means and simpler
for users to understand. If we allow major versions to bump because 'a
bunch of stuff has been added', it's very subjective.
I guess we could say: "major version gets increased whenever a new
package is added or backwards compatibility is broken" and support the
new feature part of things.
Dunno - the whole thread makes me want to emulate Sun and never remove
anything. Guess I should send them an apology for complaints about
Java if that ends up being the case :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
