On 04/03/2019 12:08, Robert Munteanu wrote: > It all sounds reasonable to me. One comment regarding your example - > branching does not necessarily force to increase the major component of > the version. > > >From your initial email, one use case for having maintenance branches > is to support incompatible changes in the JVM. > > Asumming that with 1.26 we want to end Java 19 support, then the next > Oak release could be 1.28, as we did not previously treat such changes > as 'breaking'.
hmmm. We will add/change JVM even without branching if it will not require us to change API in a non-compatible way. By the definition I gave before a Major change is for: >> MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes. so while in the past we didn't branch for JVM itself I think it happened either along with a new branch anyhow or it didn't require us to change our API in a non-compatible way. D.
