Thanks Carsten, I appreciate the information. - Jason
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Thanks for cancelling Jason. > > The version number we're talking about is a marketing version number, it > has no technical impplications (as OSGi versioning is done on packaging > level). > > The API is our most core bundle, if we increase the major version number > of the bundle, this sends out the *marketing* message that this is a new > and incompatible API. But this is not the case, the API is fully > compatible...with the addition to mention for installations using Java > 8. A client of the API still runs without changes. > > Given the java release timeline, I think it's fine to assume that mostly > everyone is using at least Java 8. Therefore we prefer to go this route > and not frighten our users with major version increases. > > Regards > > Carsten > > > Jason E Bailey wrote > > Premature version bump has resulted in a cancellation > > > > - Jason > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 11:50 AM, Jason E Bailey wrote: > >> Eh, I'm a bit confused over why a jdk requirement change is not > >> considered breaking, and I don't see what the problem is with iterating > >> the release rather than the version. But I'm good with changing it back. > >> > >> I'll cancel this when I get the chance and reset the releases and the pom. > >> > >> - Jason > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 11:39 AM, Robert Munteanu wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Jason E Bailey wrote: > >>>> The major version change is from a release perspective. The only > >>>> change to the versioning which OSGi uses is > >>>> org.apache.sling.api.resource which went from 2.11 to 2.12 > >>>> > >>>> Ioan brought up the issue as part of the pull request that the > >>>> upgrade to jdk 8 is a significant change. If someone is running > >>>> sling on a jdk 7 environment then this release will be broken for > >>>> them. I looked around at other Apache projects and there seems to be > >>>> a trend that upgrades to JRE support results in a major release > >>>> upgrade. > >>>> > >>>> This would also allow support, if there was ever a need, to do a > >>>> release for the jdk7 version after this release. > >>> > >>> This is not our current practice - we bumped versions from 5 to 6 and 7 > >>> without bumping major versions so I'd suggest we keep doing that. I > >>> think the bigger suprise would be that we increase the major version > >>> component without an actual breaking change :-) > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Robert > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > [email protected]
