On 2018-02-10, Gilles wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:08:12 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >> If a Java package and artifact ID contain "internal" or "private" in >> the >> name, that would be pretty clear.
> Do you suggest that, say, the benchmarking codes in > "commons-rng-jmh" should be located in a top package > named "o.a.c.rng.jmh.internal"? Gary's response likely stems from me misunderstanding what you asked about. I overlooked you said "modules" and assumed you were talking about parts of an artifact which otherwise should evolve in a backwards compatible way. If a whole artifact is not considered something that is there for public consumption as an API then I'd just say so (inside the POM, in javadocs, on the website ...) and not care for backwards compatibility at all. IMHO we don't need any rules for something like this, proper documentaton should be enough. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
