On 28/09/16 13:10, "Stefan Seifert" <sseif...@pro-vision.de> wrote:
>technically the semantic versioning is not violated because the package >version was raised, but usually it is a good habit to reflect this in the >bundle version as well, theoretically the bundle major version should be >updated as well. the problem in this case would be avoided in the first >place when the service interface that exposes it's API would not directly >extend the EventHandler/ResourceChangeListener interface, but would put >this to a separate, internal service. Good point, I'll keep that in mind for next time, thx! >in this case we may perhaps just leave it as it is, if you are quite sure >no one is affected when all discovery bundles are deployed together in >the new version (but of course one could never know how is using it out >there). I would be very surprised if anyone extends any internal (discovery.commons/discovery.base) classes without me knowing, so I'm quite confident yes. Ok, let's leave it this time. I'll look out for this next time though! Cheers, Stefan > >so from my side: > >+1 > >stefan > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Stefan Egli [mailto:stefane...@apache.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 9:43 AM >>To: dev@sling.apache.org >>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Sling Discovery Commons 1.0.16 and >>Discovery Oak 1.2.14 >> >>Hi Stefan, >> >>Good point, it should probably be 1.1.0. So it is considered a violation >>of semantic versioning the way I've done it now? >> >>(Two points: discovery.commons is only used by discovery.oak and >>discovery.impl afaik, and this change won't require recompiling, but >>mainly adapting sling.api dependency.) >> >>Cheers, >>Stefan >> >>On 28/09/16 08:15, "Stefan Seifert" <sseif...@pro-vision.de> wrote: >> >>>signatures and build are fine, but i've one question: >>> >>>rev. 1761756 for SLING-5995 breaks the API compatibility and increases >>>the package version of package >>>org.apache.sling.discovery.commons.providers.spi.base to 2.0.0, forcing >>>all existing implementations to recompile or adapt their version >>ranges. >>>is this intended? >>>such a beacking change is not reflected in the bundle version (1.0.12 - >>> >>>1.0.16) >>> >>>stefan >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Stefan Egli [mailto:stefane...@apache.org] >>>>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:09 PM >>>>To: dev@sling.apache.org >>>>Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Sling Discovery Commons 1.0.16 and >>>>Discovery Oak 1.2.14 >>>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>We solved 4 issues in these 2 related releases: >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING/fixforversion/12338296 >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING/fixforversion/12338297 >>>> >>>>Staging repository: >>>>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachesling-1526 >>>> >>>>You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the >>>>signatures: >>>>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/sling/trunk/check_staged_release.sh >>>> >>>>Usage: >>>>sh check_staged_release.sh 1526 /tmp/sling-staging >>>> >>>>Please vote to approve this release: >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release >>>> [ ] 0 Don't care >>>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... >>>> >>>>This majority vote is open for at least 72 hours. >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>Stefan >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
