On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 May 2011 14:51, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package >>> name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed. >> >> That's not different from a new major release in commons. If you >> anticipate the necessity of binary changes, consider creating a >> maintenance branch and a new branch anyways. > > +1, but my concern is not about SVN branches. > >> >>> Depending on incubator code is akin to depending on alpha code, i.e. >>> the user should be prepared for API instability. >> >> Why so? > > Since incubation generally means new eyes looking at the code, it > seems likely that any API problems are quite likely to be found in > incubation. > Probably more so than afterwards.
It's mostly about incubating the community, not the code. I think your 'seems likely' is fair, but it wouldn't apply to existing products and wouldn't lead to your more bombastic original statement. >> In contrary, I'd suggest to have the "early release" based on >> a stable branch for that very reason. > > But if problems are found with the API, there is no such thing as a > stable branch. It's a mature codebase. Ignore the incubator aspect and work on the next version as if it was already in commons and/or had never changed its location. +1 to moving to the next major version; technically no reason but it does have good community reasons such that the change of source is clear and well communicated. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
