If you are breaking backward compatibility then you need to do the renames (package, and artifactId).
I don't know if we ever landed on a "rule" about the new JDK level scenario, though. On Thursday, October 10, 2013, Ate Douma wrote: > On 10/11/2013 01:16 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Commons SCXML has only one reverse dependency in Maven Central, >> flexistate, so I wouldn't bother with the binary compatibility and just >> keep the package as is. >> > > Hmm. That might be the only reverse dependency of artifacts also deployed > to Maven Central, but I'm pretty sure SCXML 0.9 is used in plenty of > projects which might be impacted still. > > I would expect stronger arguments to decide yes/no if a package rename is > required or not. This would seem a bit (too) arbitrary to me. > > Mind you, I'd prefer not having to do a package rename, but I got the > impression there are more explicit 'rules' when to do so. > > So I'd still would like to hear more explicitly if such a rule is defined, > and if so how it is worded and where. But of course if there is none, fine > by me :) > > Thanks, Ate > > >> http://mvnrepository.com/**artifact/commons-scxml/**commons-scxml/0.9<http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/commons-scxml/commons-scxml/0.9> >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
