I think these changes are Okay. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> [Subject changed] > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was a little surprised when I noticed method additions to > > InterfaceAudience.Public annotated classes. This means that a user could > > write code against 1.0.1 that would not work against 1.0.0 which seems > > undesirable for a bugfix release. I read over the book section on > > compatibility and didn't see this addressed, so I thought I'd ask. > > > Let's clarify this. It's not the first time this question has been asked. > > To get things moving: > > I propose the following addition to the "Client API compatibility" section > of Section 11.1: > > + APIs available in a patch version will be available in all later > + patch versions. However, new APIs may be added which will not be > + available in earlier patch versions. > > I propose the following change to the "Client Binary compatibility" section > of Section 11.1: > > - Old client code can run unchanged (no recompilation needed) against new > jars. > + Client code written to APIs available in a given patch release > + can run unchanged (no recompilation needed) against the new > + jars of later patch versions. > > > What do you think? > > If these changes are (mostly) ok, then this clarifies in one direction. > > If these changes are not acceptable, I will propose edits that clarify > toward the opposite meaning. > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
