Hi Angela, I used semantic versioning just to get a definition of versioning, I guess that the question should have been:
Will oak 2.0 be backward compatible with oak 1.6 ? Thanks, Andrei > On Oct 17, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsemver.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5002b2ab30c3456277cd08d5152ff041%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636438217997390545&sdata=3viXWNgw0jwVU62Zeuqzu6T4%2BXJi6UKmxpG52SuJjUY%3D&reserved=0 > > 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. > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
