Any chance means more testing even if nothing has changed locally. Even with interfaces being the same there are no guarantees that things are exactly the same. Any small change warrants a new release (or an upgrade of some kind) or you break the always-reproducable-release idea too.
Andy On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 09:46 +1000, Graham Lea wrote: > That is a very interesting statement. > I can see where you're coming from - people who originally selected that > POM would not want it to change and start providing something different. > However, it seems a bit odd to me to have to "upgrade" a project because > of a dependency change, when no code has changed in the project and the > dependency is functionally- and interface-compatible. > Any philosophical thoughts on that, anyone? > > G. > > Wendy Smoak wrote: > > > In addition, in Scenario One, even if Sally did know about Bob's 1.0.1 > > version, she should not *change* her v2.0 pom. She would need to > > release a 2.0.1 version of her framework with the new dependency. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
