+1 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Can this VOTE thread come back to life now? > St.Ack > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Let's postpone this vote. > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > See the threads on dev@ titled "Clarifying interface evolution > freedom > > in > > > patch releases" and "The Renumbering (proposed)". > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, "Enis Söztutar" <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think the agreement is to continue with the RC. > > > > > > > > > > > One note... in the japi report, I was a little surprised when I > > > noticed > > > > > method additions to InterfaceAudience.Public annotated classes. > This > > > > means > > > > > that a user could write code against 1.0.1 that would not work > > against > > > > > 1.0.0 which seems undesirable for a bugfix release. I read over the > > > book > > > > > section on compatibility and didn't see this addressed, so I > thought > > > I'd > > > > > ask. > > > > > > > > > > I think this is allowed. Did not check it though. > > > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not allowed normally under semver. There's already another > thread > > > > going on this though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
