I don't think Gary said that the binding had to be major, only that in
the absence of a release binding specified by the project, what can we
assume? Major is the only "safe" assumption because it has no
compatibility requirements. If the project team doesn't like a Major
binding (and I agree with you that they shouldn't!), then they should
explicitly indicate the binding in their case materials.
- Garrett
John Plocher wrote:
> Gary Winiger wrote:
>> And the Release Binding is? How about Major?
>
> In this case, why would Major be a requirement?
>
> (he asks naively, trying to inject architectural clarity into this
> type of conversation...)
>
> Personally, I see nothing in this case that would require a major
> release.
> It makes no incompatible changes to existing interfaces, so, by the rules
> in the interface/release taxonomies, it should qualify for patch binding.
>
> It may not follow all the best practices and policies, but I'm not sure
> how that compliance maps to the release taxonomy....
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> -John
>
>
