I would bump to version 2.0 because I dont think its clear that going from 0.9 to 1.0 is a major version change - in my mind 0.9 seems to imply "we haven't quite completed everything we want to for 1.0"
Niall On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:52 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > Now, this case is a bit weird, since we have released code in a < 1.0 > version number. So, the artifact/package will have to be scxml1, > which looks funky IMHO. I guess that follows the pattern, though. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > > On 10/11/2013 01:41 AM, James Carman wrote: > >> > >> If you are breaking backward compatibility then you need to do the > renames > >> (package, and artifactId). > > > > > > That was my impression already. > > And I have no real issue with doing so. > > > > But again, when has this been decided and has it ever been formalized > > (written down) somewhere? > > > > > >> > >> I don't know if we ever landed on a "rule" about the new JDK level > >> scenario, though. > > > > Okay, maybe that was just an incorrect assumption. > > > > And it doesn't really matter as there will be breaking API changes needed > > for the next version of SCXML, so we'll have to bump the major version > > anyway. > > > >> > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
