Tom Hobbs wrote:
I agree with Niclas, breaking source but not binary compatibility sounds
like a strange set of difficult circumstances.
I'd got for a more simple definition of "Major Release - might break
anything you're currently doing, please check the release notes".
This is where I make a comment about changing all the package names...
Cheers,
Tom
That sounds like a good compromise, accepted +1
Cheers,
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Niclas
Hedhman
Sent: 01 October 2009 08:08
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Release versioning
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Peter Firmstone <[email protected]>
wrote:
-Major Release, new Features, Packages & API, API Changes that Break
Source
(compile time) compatibility but not binary (runtime) compatibility.
What are you going to call a release that breaks binary compatibility?
Personally, I think this requirement is too ambitious. If source
compatibility is broken, you might as well allow for binary
compatibility to break as well. I doubt the constraint is valuable
enough, and instead try to keep both source and binary compatibility
as long as possible and aggregate changes into any major releases very
seldomly.
Cheers
