The fact that it's not 100% compatible IS why it's not a good idea to call it 2.x. The point of version numbering schemes are to reflect the compatibility between releases. If trunk is not a major release, I don't know what is. And yes I would hope that the 3.x line tries to keep as much backward compatible support with 2.x as possible. Otherwise, you've got a brand new product in your hands and your 2.x users will have a big wall to climb to to upgrade to the 3.x. As for dropping deprecated APIs, I'd do that in a 3.1 or once we verify that migration to 3.x is fully backward compatible from 2.x (I'm sure we will miss some compatibility stuff in the first few releases of 3.x).
Regards, Hiram FuseSource Web: http://fusesource.com/ On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > I just talked to Dan and Hadrian about this idea. The problem is that > however we would call such a release people would take it as kind of a > milestone and it would probably not be used much. > > So it is probably better to use the 2.9 and perhaps 2.10 release for that. > The 2.x naming will suggest that it is mostly compatible and we can mention > in the release not that it is not 100% compatbile. > > For people who do not want the changes we can use the 2.8.x branch. So we > could keep porting back some improvements like Dan did for people who want > to stay 100% compatible. > > Christian > > > Am 23.09.2011 16:43, schrieb Christian Schneider: >> >> Basically that is a good idea. I also thought about a similar solution. I >> would only not like to call it milestone as that typically implies that it >> is instable. No sane admin will deploy a milestone release in production. >> How about 3.0.0-compat or similar. So we could have one or more releases >> of this that are fully production ready but will still contain the >> @Deprecated classes. Then we can release Camel 3.0.0 that simply removes >> these. >> >> Christian >> >> Am 23.09.2011 15:59, schrieb Willem Jiang: >>> >>> I think the main concern of Christian is he afraid Camel 3.0 won't have >>> much user to use, and he explain us the recent back ports of Camel 2.8.2 is >>> because of the API change in Camel 2.9-SNAPSHOT. >>> >>> How about we treat the Camel 2.9 as the Camel 3.0-m1. When we developed >>> Camel 2.0, we actual did three mile stone release to fill the gap of the API >>> change. >>> For the user who want to do some release just after Camel 3.0 RC is out, >>> he can keep using Camel 3.0 mile stone release. >>> For the user who just want use the stable Camel 2.x, he can chose Camel >>> 2.8.x, as we already did a lot of merge of on the Camel 2.8.x branch. >>> >>> Camel 3.0 Mx can tell the user what API change will be made, and we can >>> removed the @Deprecates API when the Camel 3.0 is shaped. >>> >>> Any thoughts ? >> > > > -- > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > >
