Cannot remember which component from the top of my head - but it was related to package name changes.
My style of thinking: x.y.z x - no compatibility y - source compatibility z - binary compatibility is simple and makes sense. It's OK to put some burden on the users when upgrading - as long as the expectations are set correctly. But I am pretty sure we discussed that before and some people did not agree. cheers, Torsten On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2013-10-08, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > > > Le 07/10/2013 20:14, Benedikt Ritter a écrit : > > >> - loosen API compatibility policy? > > > This topic alone deserves its own thread I think. > > > Ensuring binary/source compatibility is very important. > > +1 > > I guess I've done too much ruby with "every bundle update runs the risk > of breaking everything" lately. I really value the stability commons > provides. > > That being said, I'm sure there are cases where our policy seems > stricter than it needs to be - even though I haven't seen a really > difficult case in the one component I contribute to. > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
