On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 14:59, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le mar. 10 mai 2022 à 09:53, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 02:32, Matt Juntunen <matt.a.juntu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. Are there any arguments against this change > > > other than the fact that it is not a japicmp default setting? > > > > > > > I do not know why the setting default is at the current value. Unlike the > > documentation for revapi there is limited explanation of the default > > settings in japicmp and why compatibility for binary or source will be > > broken. It may be that the developer explicitly wished to be informed of > > additions to interfaces. > > > > Since this is unlikely to affect much at all it may be fine left as is in > > commons parent. The configuration can be added to the relevant POM in > > Commons RNG. > > IIUC, it should be the other way around: If BC is not broken, the > common Commons settings should not report otherwise, and if > some specific component has additional requirements, let it modify > its own POM. > > The original change was added to commons parent by Gary Gregory, I presume because a downstream project added a default method to an interface and japicmp complained. This must be the first instance in commons where a default implementation is added for an existing interface method. I can add the change to CP when I know it is definitely correct. I have finished the implementation in RNG. I am going through testing the snapshot with code that was built against the previous version. Alex
