--- Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP] (Stefan:) > >(2) If no patterns have been specified at all, > implicitly assume > >packagenames="*" and match all packages that have > been found. This is > >not backwards compatible since builds that have > been breaking prior to > >that change would suddenly start building. > > > > > > > At the moment, this is a relatively minor change - > either set the > packagenames="*" as a default value, or change the > current > checking/validation. > > >I don't see much danger in this type of backwards > incompatibility (and > >thus prefer option 2) but wanted to gather some > feedback before > >enabling it. > >
I agree--my interpretation of backwards-compatibility is that working builds do not break; it is entirely permissible to make broken builds work. I can think of examples where we have added a default value so that what was once a BuildException due to some missing attr/element is now legal... the worst that could happen is that a build generates more doc than it used to, and that probably presumes the use of <try>... i.e. not realistic to assume anything working would be changed at all, much less negatively. -Matt > > > If broken builds start building, do you actually > think we'll get hassle > from people seeing different behaviour than > expected/documented? > Technically it's a BWC problem, but in reality its > relaxing the > restrictions and I think that we should do this to > make peoples lives > easier (have to type less) > > my 2p > > Kev > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
