Hi Chetan Well... I would have excepted that one goal of the m12n was to get a clear separation between public API and internals and everything that we target as API/SPI should be public IMO.
And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are meant to be internal... Angela On 14/11/17 18:10, "Chetan Mehrotra" <[email protected]> wrote: >Do we want to have explicit version for all packages in oak-core-spi >or should we only do it for packages which we expect code outside of >Oak codebase would be using? As once we version it we cannot change in >backward incompatible way easily >Chetan Mehrotra > > >On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Angela Schreiber ><[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Robert >> >> Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects. >> >> Kind regards >> Angela >> >> On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +0000, Angela Schreiber wrote: >>>> Any preference wrt the initial version number? >>> >>>The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO. >>> >>>Robert >>
