hi andrei this has nothing to do with semantic versioning
regards angela From: Andrei Kalfas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday 17 October 2017 09:18 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Consider making Oak 1.8 an Oak 2.0 Hi, 2.0 as in semantic versioning [1] is not backward compatible with 1.x. Will it be the case ? Thanks, Andrei [1] http://semver.org/ On Oct 17, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Davide Sure... I already started doing so and there is a dedicated JIRA ticket for that matter. Feel free to contribute if you spot something that is missing or misleading. Angela On 16/10/17 13:36, "Davide Giannella" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 13/10/2017 16:01, Matt Ryan wrote: Makes good sense to me. Cutting the next release as a major version reflects the high amount of change in dependencies that the downstream should expect. +1. I think we should as well document somewhere in oak-doc the new bundles or where a code has migrated so that an upgrading consumer may find it easier to move between 1.6 and 2.0. D.
