I don't see any necessity to restrict patch releases to patches only -- as long as any new functionality is a tiny enhancement and doesn't make incompatibilities. Save medium/major structural changes for a new minor version.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]>wrote: > A bit of a recap: > > Let's say that our goal as a group was to be very responsive to user's > bug reports. > > So, we'd want to make fixes and releases, 'promptly', for some > definition of prompt. > > But no one will install those releases if they are not confident that > they are, in fact, not going to have unexpected consequences. > > From a black-box standpoint, this can only be achieved with really > strong integration tests. > > From a white-box standpoint, it seems to me that the Maven core has a > tendency towards complex interactions in which a fix to problem (a) > can have unexpected consequence (b). > > So, either way, Jason's views about testing seem spot-on. This leaves > a question: should we be trying, still, to follow up a 3.2.0 with a > pure bugfix 3.2.1, and holding off on structural repairs or new > features until 3.3? One view is that we should try to get some of the > tests improved and some of the structural repairs done before we make > any attempt at semver/responsive releases. The other view is that > should try to deliver on semver as best we can. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Cheers, Paul
