Go for it. If you change some public APIs, try if possible to deprecate them (in the case of some users used them)
Arnaud On 15/06/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No problems here. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:42 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: maven-dependency-tree changes for 1.1 On 13/06/07, Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi there, > > I've been working on dependency tree diagnostic tools and as a > consequence have made substantial changes to maven-dependency-tree. A > brief synopsis of changes are: > > - support for node states: included, omitted for conflict, etc. > - node filter API and various implementations for pruning the tree > - node visitor API and various implementations for processing the tree > (esp. serializing visitor for pretty printing the tree, complete with > ascii art :) > > There's a few API changes for the better, but I assume that's okay. > > So the question is: can this be submitted as a big patch, or must I > painstakingly reverse engineer each change into a set of accumulative > patches.. (hint: big patch) Any objections to me committing these major changes? 1.0 is available for existing users who can migrate to 1.1 as and when. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- .......................................................... Arnaud HERITIER .......................................................... OCTO Technology - [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.octo.com | blog.octo.com .......................................................... ASF - [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.apache.org | maven.apache.org ...........................................................
