Okay. We're clearly losing what is, in my opinion, useful meaning in the bundle version, but this is a minor issue for me, and if a consensus has already been reached then so be it.
> From: Jeremy Hughes <jpjhug...@gmail.com> > To: dev@aries.apache.org > Date: 08/19/2015 05:33 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: Versioning Policy > > Hi John, I went through the same feelings of trepidation at making > this change, but the reason for doing this in the first place is to > make the release process easier and provide a set of bundles that > users can know work together. So it's certainly a compromise from that > point of view. What is sacred though, is the true semantic versioning > of packages. > > On 18 August 2015 at 17:35, John W Ross <jwr...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Previously, you could count on a minor bundle version increment to > > correspond to at least one package in that bundle also having a minor > > version increment. I guess what it would tell me now is that at least one > > of the packages in one of the bundles within the same project received a > > minor version increment, although not necessarily this particular bundle? > > > >> From: Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> > >> To: dev@aries.apache.org > >> Date: 08/18/2015 11:10 AM > >> Subject: Re: Fw: Versioning Policy > >> Sent by: Christian Schneider <cschneider...@gmail.com> > >> > >> As long as the bundle exports the packages with the same version as > >> before it should not have any influence. > >> The only major problem would be if people use require bundle instead of > >> import package. > >> > >> Christian > >> > >> > >> > >> On 18.08.2015 17:56, John W Ross wrote: > >> > There are no concerns with a bundle version changing even though the > >> > content of the bundle did not change? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Christian Schneider > >> http://www.liquid-reality.de > >> > >> Open Source Architect > >> http://www.talend.com > >> > > >
