Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:34, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main > point is: do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime > it will work? If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have > some of changes but keep asm7 module to ensure we cover it IMHO. > > We should definitely not introduce ASM 7 code into our asm6 module. > > Another topic is we've been on ASM 6 for 2 years. Should we change the > XBean major version to 5 when we switch to ASM 7? > Since some years I really think we should explode xbean to be able to have this real versioning otherwise we are always between "this part needs a new major but not this one for consistency". > > That would give us the option to keep pushing out XBean 4.x releases with > further ASM 6 updates for those who can't/won't upgrade yet or also have > stable branches to maintain. > Strictly speaking we can have asm[3-7] in the same source tree so not sure it helps to move in one direction or the other. > > If if we don't change the major version and any critical bugs or security > vulnerabilities hit XBean 4.10, we'd have to do a 4.10.1. If that happened > a few times we'd find ourselves with 4.10.2, 4.10.3 and effectively > maintaining a de facto branch, just after the fact and in a very awkward > way. > I actually like that for multiple reasons: 1. upgrading is a very doable work for all projects which would require such an upgrade so not a blocker 2. we can always lazily create a maintenance branch from a tag (vs eagerly which is generally useless) and when done it does not get more love than the CVE fix if it exists At the end it is the less costly solution IMHO. > > > -David > >
