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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
-