On 29/12/2009, at 8:18 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > +1 with Ralph. It is what I have in mind. the problem is that we already > moved from 2.1 to 3.0 and finally we should produce a 2.5 (our users will be > lost). > But I agree, 3.0 isn't a 3.0, it is 100% backward compatible with 2.X. And > more annoying we are talking about having backward incompatibilities > (removing some stuffs) in 3.1. > I'm not comfortable with that.
I tend to agree, but I think the target has moved so much, especially with a lot of public talks about the versions, that changing anything might cause further confusion. What about something like this: - 2.3 (or 2.9?) release that just adds all the deprecations (kind of like what Lucene did before a major rev). - 3.0 release retains deprecated functionality, with a --strict mode to fail instead of warning (I haven't seen this, but ISTR Brian saying this was going to be added, or is already there, at ApacheCon) - 3.1 can then drop the functionality So, 3.0 essentially drops the functionality, with a "grace period" - which is closer to what users might expect without changing the current story. WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
