Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread Gilles
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 18:04:59 +0100, sebb wrote: On 22 August 2018 at 15:04, Gary Gregory wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:53 AM Rob Tompkins wrote: > On Aug 22, 2018, at 9:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Wait a second. If we are talking about our own release plugin, I think we > have a

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread sebb
On 22 August 2018 at 15:04, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:53 AM Rob Tompkins wrote: > >> >> >> > On Aug 22, 2018, at 9:38 AM, Gary Gregory >> wrote: >> > >> > Wait a second. If we are talking about our own release plugin, I think we >> > have a different beast here since this i

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread Gary Gregory
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:53 AM Rob Tompkins wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 2018, at 9:38 AM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > Wait a second. If we are talking about our own release plugin, I think we > > have a different beast here since this is only used by us. BUT... I like > > consistency, so we mig

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 9:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Wait a second. If we are talking about our own release plugin, I think we > have a different beast here since this is only used by us. BUT... I like > consistency, so we might as well eat our own dog food. For major version > changes that

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread Gary Gregory
Wait a second. If we are talking about our own release plugin, I think we have a different beast here since this is only used by us. BUT... I like consistency, so we might as well eat our own dog food. For major version changes that break BC we must change both the artifact ID and Java package name

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread Rob Tompkins
Seems reasonable. Should we go with 2.0? -Rob > On Aug 22, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Gilles wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:04:12 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: >> I’m curious to gauge what people think here. My general thought is no >> breaking BC without a major version change. So, even though this is

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-22 Thread Gilles
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:04:12 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: I’m curious to gauge what people think here. My general thought is no breaking BC without a major version change. So, even though this is an internal component, we stick with the rules because we never know who else might be using the comp

Re: [release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-21 Thread Gary Gregory
Well, BC is pretty binary... it seems simple to maintain BC. Javadoc, deprecate, and keep BC IMO. Gary On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 20:04 Rob Tompkins wrote: > I’m curious to gauge what people think here. My general thought is no > breaking BC without a major version change. So, even though this is an

[release-plugin] Preparing for 1.4.

2018-08-21 Thread Rob Tompkins
I’m curious to gauge what people think here. My general thought is no breaking BC without a major version change. So, even though this is an internal component, we stick with the rules because we never know who else might be using the component, right? -Rob -