Can this VOTE thread come back to life now? St.Ack On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Let's postpone this vote. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > See the threads on dev@ titled "Clarifying interface evolution freedom > in > > patch releases" and "The Renumbering (proposed)". > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, "Enis Söztutar" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the agreement is to continue with the RC. > > > > > > > > > One note... in the japi report, 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. > > > > > > > > I think this is allowed. Did not check it though. > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > It's not allowed normally under semver. There's already another thread > > > going on this though. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > >
