On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:15 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM, James Strachan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 2008/10/10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> Internally we're able to use something newer >>> than 1.0 because we're willing to cope with >>> incompatible API changes. This is a lot of >>> work, but we bear it to get access to features >>> that are still under development. >> >> I'm sure lots of folks outside of Google would also be happy to cope >> with incompatible API changes too :) >> >> How about doing a 2.0-alpha / 2.0-beta release with a warning that >> things may change before 2.0 final? Folks in OSS land really dont >> mind >> if things change; provided releases are named such that folks know >> its >> not *the* stable 2.0 release. > > Hear hear! > > And, as Gili states, "2.0" by itself markedly states that there are > major, incompatible API changes. My personal understanding of the OSS > world versioning scheme is rather like Gili's, apparently, where only > revisions (the 0.0.x) don't have any API changes. And, as James here > mentions, you also have the alpha, beta, rc nomenclature to ride on. This is semi true. Many projects don't follow these rules and just change APIs as they deem necessary. Just check out the differences between Hibernate 3.1 and 3.2 or Struts 2.0.7 and 2.0.11. Those were BRUTAL! Just kills me and hurts Savant's feelings constantly. :( -bp --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
