Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier email and thought you meant that the next *patch* version would be requiring Java 7.
It is fair enough with new minor version for that, I would not champion a strict interpretation of semver where the major is bumped for almost any change! On 1 May 2014 16:09, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/05/14 15:53, Damian Steer wrote: > >> >> On 1 May 2014, at 15:51, Claude Warren <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What are the Semantic Versioning rules? >>> >> >> <http://semver.org> >> >> (I assume this is the canonical source) >> >> Damian >> >> > which seems to be about the thing itself (the public API. which we are not > changing). Nearest I found is: > > [[ > What should I do if I update my own dependencies without changing the > public API? > > That would be considered compatible since it does not affect the public > API. Software that explicitly depends on the same dependencies as your > package should have their own dependency specifications and the author will > notice any conflicts. Determining whether the change is a patch level or > minor level modification depends on whether you updated your dependencies > in order to fix a bug or introduce new functionality. I would usually > expect additional code for the latter instance, in which case it's > obviously a minor level increment. > ]] > > but really the semver isn't just Java so this pushing a corner case IMO. > > Andy > >
