+1 And the patch is a signature change on a private method so not a real issue.
2013/1/29 Anders Hammar <[email protected]>: > Just want to check what the general opinion is about changing method > signatures of Plexus component interfaces in our plugins for a minor > version release. > > In a perfect world it would be awesome to always keep backwards > compatibility and at least never do any changes unless a major version. But > as we all know this comes at a cost (and also sometimes forces one to > create a less good solution). So I wonder if this is important if it's a > component defined in a plugin and just used in that plugin. Sure, some > advanced user could in theory have written their own implementation > possibly using that. Highly unlikely though I think. > > What's your thoughts? Currently I'm looking at ARCHETYPE-358 and the > archetype plugin which has a few internal components. > > Personally I'm +1 as my take is that we're always telling the users not to > have a dependency to (extend) a plugin. Separate libraries (like there are > in the maven-archetype project) is different thing I think. > > /Anders -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
