Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-10-22 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 19/09/2015 13:58, Kristian Rosenvold a écrit : > Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to > org.apache.commons.io.input.TailerListener#endOfFileReached > and will probably only affect a few users. As a data point, this listener is never used in the 1100 Java packages in De

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread Jörg Schaible
sebb wrote: > On 21 September 2015 at 20:03, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 9/21/15 10:59 AM, sebb wrote: >>> On 21 September 2015 at 18:36, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: Gary Gregory wrote: > Alternative to keep 100% BC > > - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SN

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread sebb
On 21 September 2015 at 20:03, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 9/21/15 10:59 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 21 September 2015 at 18:36, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Gary Gregory wrote: >>> Alternative to keep 100% BC - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SNAPSHOT - Add the new

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread Phil Steitz
On 9/21/15 10:36 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Gary Gregory wrote: > >> Alternative to keep 100% BC >> >> - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SNAPSHOT >> - Add the new method in a new sub-interface > or catch and ignore this special RTE when calling the new method form our > cod

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread Phil Steitz
On 9/21/15 10:59 AM, sebb wrote: > On 21 September 2015 at 18:36, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Gary Gregory wrote: >> >>> Alternative to keep 100% BC >>> >>> - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SNAPSHOT >>> - Add the new method in a new sub-interface >> or catch and ignore this sp

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread sebb
On 21 September 2015 at 18:36, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Gary Gregory wrote: > >> Alternative to keep 100% BC >> >> - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SNAPSHOT >> - Add the new method in a new sub-interface > > or catch and ignore this special RTE when calling the new method fo

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread Jörg Schaible
Gary Gregory wrote: > Alternative to keep 100% BC > > - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SNAPSHOT > - Add the new method in a new sub-interface or catch and ignore this special RTE when calling the new method form our code. Old clients never asked for it, new/updated clie

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread Gary Gregory
Alternative to keep 100% BC - Remove the new method, release 2.5, and add it back for SNAPSHOT - Add the new method in a new sub-interface Gary On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 9/19/15 9:55 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 19 September 2015 at 17:26, Kristian Rosenvold > wrote:

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-21 Thread Phil Steitz
On 9/19/15 9:55 AM, sebb wrote: > On 19 September 2015 at 17:26, Kristian Rosenvold > wrote: >> 2015-09-19 13:58 GMT+02:00 Kristian Rosenvold : >>> Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to >> Oops. The breach is adding a /method/. > That's what I assumed - adding a method to

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread Peter Ansell
On 19 September 2015 at 20:32, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > The next release is binary compatible except for *1* method that has > been added to a (fairly infrequently used) interface. Does that still > mean I should burn 2.5 and go for 3.0. And would that be 3.0 or 3.0.0 > ? If you are thinking a

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread sebb
On 19 September 2015 at 17:26, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > 2015-09-19 13:58 GMT+02:00 Kristian Rosenvold : >> Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to > Oops. The breach is adding a /method/. That's what I assumed - adding a method to an interface does not affect binary comp

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread Kristian Rosenvold
2015-09-19 13:58 GMT+02:00 Kristian Rosenvold : > Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to Oops. The breach is adding a /method/. > > org.apache.commons.io.input.TailerListener#endOfFileReached > and will probably only affect a few users. I'm documenting this in > release not

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread sebb
On 19 September 2015 at 13:33, sebb wrote: > On 19 September 2015 at 12:58, Kristian Rosenvold > wrote: >> Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to >> >> org.apache.commons.io.input.TailerListener#endOfFileReached >> and will probably only affect a few users. I'm documentin

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread sebb
On 19 September 2015 at 12:58, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to > > org.apache.commons.io.input.TailerListener#endOfFileReached > and will probably only affect a few users. I'm documenting this in > release notes. This is binary compatible

Re: Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread Kristian Rosenvold
Just to be clear on this, the breach is adding an interface to org.apache.commons.io.input.TailerListener#endOfFileReached and will probably only affect a few users. I'm documenting this in release notes. Personally I'd say this is 2.5 simply due to its very limited impact, but version numbers ar

Version number for next commons-io

2015-09-19 Thread Kristian Rosenvold
The next release is binary compatible except for *1* method that has been added to a (fairly infrequently used) interface. Does that still mean I should burn 2.5 and go for 3.0. And would that be 3.0 or 3.0.0 ? Kristian - To unsu