+1 for 2.0. We had some discussion on version numbers, and it seems in line with the opinions there to require a major version bump for backwards incompatible changes.
Another option would be to deprecate the class. That's perhaps easier on the users. /LS > From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > > 1.3 would be fine if you just deprecate the class. > > 2.0 would be required if you remove the class. > > > I don't think that this is carved in stone and I would > 1.3 but if the overall opinion here is to move to 2.0 > I'm fine with that as well. So, what do others think? > > Carsten > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
