On 20 August 2015 at 11:30, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > On 20.08.2015 11:36, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >>>> >>>> Sometimes no exported package changes but you still have new >>>> functionality. So a increasing the minor version instead of the bugfix >>>> version makes sense. >> >> I agree, but this has always been the case. The version reflects the >> semantics of the package or bundle, not the API. So if new function is >> added and no externals (interfaces etc) change, then the minor version >> must still get bumped. This is so that a client of that package can >> indicate its requirement for the new function. >> >> Also, version numbers don't get bumped unnecessarily. Say a bundle has >> changes that would ordinarily mean a minor version change, then the >> minor version is bumped and the micro version zero'd out. All the >> other bundles being co-released (assuming they don't have significant >> ie major version changes) will also have their minor version bumped >> (and micro version reset). >> I would object to a the minor version (say) being bumped when all that >> has changed across the whole release is micro changes. >> >> > I fully agree. If there are only micro changes then the bundle version > should also only be increased at the micro level. > What I wanted to say is that you sometimes have changes that do not reflect > in the API but still can fail existing clients. > If you know that you have such changes in the code then an increase in the > micro version would not correctly reflect this. > > So basically what I am saying is that we should not blindly trust the output > of the version plugin.
Good point. > > Christian > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com >