What if you change the semantic of a function call without changing the signature ? I guess that's an incompatible change in theory, though still binary compatible. So we can't limit to binary compatibility for versioning imho, which mean there is some semantic involved.
If you expect the user to take an action when upgrading, it means there is a (somewhat) incompatible change imho. On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:36, Alasdair Nottingham <n...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 a package version change reflects a change to the package, not a > change to the implementation. > > On 15 June 2010 13:27, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 15.06.2010 14:20, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:15, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 15.06.2010 13:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >>>> Usually, users would use a range, so it should not matter that much I > >>> think. > >>> > >>> Yes and no. > >>> > >>> The problem is, that the bundle version may evolve independently of the > >>> API export version. > >>> > >>> Consider for example that we decide to release a 4.0 version of the Web > >>> Console in the future whereas the API did not change at all. In this > >>> case, we should still export the API as 3.1 to not break existing > >>> plugins which import the API as [3.1,3.2). > >>> > >> > >> And why would be bump the version if there's no change ? > > > > Where's the change ? The Web Console bundle exports API and contains > > implementation. As such the Web Console bundle attaches a version to the > > exported package and to the bundle itself. > > > > But: We must not mix the semantic of the version of the API export with > > the semantic of the bundle version, which also includes implementation > code. > > > >> Even if the > >> package did not actually change, if there was a need for the major > version > >> to be bumped, i'd rather reflect that on the package version as well, to > >> make sure people are aware of those major changes (and change their > version > >> range if needed). > > > > No, please not. > > > > The export package version has semantic meaning to the importers (users, > > implementors) of the exported package. > > > > The bundle version on the other hand has semantic meaning to the (human) > > users of the web console at large. > > > > If we upgrade the export version of the package, just because we > > modified some internal implementation, this will break plugins for > > nothing worth -- except making (human) users and administrators unhappy > > because we require them to upgrade plugins ... > > > > Granted, if the internal implementation causes the API to change we must > > increment the version of the exported package. > > > > But in no case should the version of an exported package be incremented > > just because the internal implementation changed without influence on > > the exported package contents.... > > > > Regards > > Felix > > > > > >> For example, from 2.x to 3.x, the UI has been redesigned, but the > package > >> could have been backward compatible (is it ?). But even if it is > >> compatible, i'd rather upgrade it to 3.x, because i'd rather have users > be > >> aware that they need to rewrite the plugins to adapt to the new ui ... > >> > >> > >>> > >>>> I've used the pom.version for 3.1.0, which an be change afterward if > we > >>> want > >>>> to keep at 3.1.0 for the package version for future releases. > >>> > >>> Ok. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Felix > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 13:15, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 15.06.2010 12:58, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >>>>>> Wow, I was expecting the package to be derived from the project > >>> version. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, because I don't want to increase the export version on each > bundle > >>>>> release. The downside is, that it must not be forgotten to be > increased > >>>>> when there is some change in the API. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> Felix > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'll fix that now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cancelling this release again. ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:46, Felix Meschberger < > fmesc...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 15.06.2010 11:47, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >>>>>>>> I would like to call a new vote on the following subproject > releases: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> webconsole 3.1.0 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Still exports web console API 3.0 ... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>> Felix > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> bundlerepository 1.6.4 > >>>>>>>> karaf 1.6.2 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Staging repository: > >>>>>>>> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefelix-053/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify > the > >>>>>>>> signatures: > >>>>>>>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Usage: > >>>>>>>> sh check_staged_release.sh 053 /tmp/felix-staging > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please vote to approve this release: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release > >>>>>>>> [ ] -1 There's a problem (please provide specific comments) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Alasdair Nottingham > n...@apache.org > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
