2012/5/30 Fabian Christ <[email protected]> > 2012/5/30 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]>: > >> To conclude: I do not object with you suggestion. I only tried to > >> point out that I believe you assumption that the parent POM will not > >> change very often is not the case for a "dependency heavy" project > >> like Apache Stanbol. If you do not have a problem with parent POM > >> versions >20 than your proposal might still be OK. Otherwise I would > >> suggest to use minor version upgrades for version changes of > >> dependencies. > >> > > > > I think that would make sense if don't change APIs, otherwise a major > > version change is needed IMHO. > > The parent POM does not define any API. It just configures the > dependencies. So to distinguish between major.minor does not make > sense here if you want to express some degree of compatibility. The > next version is just different from the one before - simple counter > IMHO. >
right, but if it might happen that dependency version change would require adapting our classes/APIs, that was my only concern with minor/major version changing. Tommaso > > -- > Fabian > http://twitter.com/fctwitt >
