Sean Busbey wrote:
On Feb 16, 2015 10:40 AM, "Josh Elser"<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm failing to actually parse this WRT what we're allowed to do, but
would naturally lean towards keeping 1.7.0. I don't think anything else has
changed which would make us not want to tie 2.0 to a new client API.
Since 1.6.z -> 1.7.0 is a minor version bump, we can add to the public API
so long as the changes are binary backward compatible.
That means new classes, interfaces,methods, enum members, etc are all fine.
All of the things labelled as HIGH severity in the binary compatibility
report are definitely a problem. They're mostly classes and methods that
were removed.
Thank you, this is what I was struggling to understand.
The end goal should be a report like the one Corey got for 1.6.1 -> 1.6.2.
We don't need the reciprocal report to be compatible because minor versions
need not be forward compatible.
Problems in the source compatibility report are worth reviewing, but things
that only show up there shouldn't be a blocker.
