My vote is for #2. Thanks!
Bill- On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 08:18 +0000, James Abley wrote: > > I don't know if you can use semantic versioning [1], or if apache > projects > > have a different way of defining major / minor / point version changes? > > > > [1] http://semver.org/ > > > > ... > > > > > On 23 November 2012 00:00, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If we wish to support Spring we still have to maintain strict binary > > > compatibility within a given package name and associated AID. > > > > > > > policy in this regard and stick to it we will be acting responsibly > > > > enough given the existing project constraints. > > > > > > The policy also has to be workable within the likely usage scenarios. > > > > > > For example, for JMeter it would be fine to drop deprecated methods > > > after a couple of releases, but AFAICT that is not the case for > > > Spring. > > > There's no guarantee that all the Spring components can be upgraded > > > within a given release time-frame - or indeeed ever -so breaks in > > > compatibilty must be accompanied by a change in package name/AID. > > > > > @Sebastian > > All right. So be it. > > @James > > Given the outcome of this discussion the versioning policy we de facto > have in HC is equivalent to the semantic versioning described in the > document with very minor deviations (x.y-alpha1 instead of x.y.z-alpha1 > and so on). > > Oleg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
