its not just an api break. it is also the fact that we changed the
underlying technology. ive seen a lot of projects jump a major version when
they switched to jdk 1.5 without adding too many features.
it will also make it easier for martijn and eelco to continue with their
book as they dont have to rebrand it with their publisher
-igor
On 4/19/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Martijn Dashorst:
>
> Apache Wicket 1.3 will be followed by:
> [x] Apache Wicket 1.4
> [ ] Apache Wicket 1.5 (after the JDK)
> [ ] Apache Wicket 5 (similar, but more accurate)
> [ ] Apache Wicket 2.0 (i.e. becomes our old 2.0 minus the c'tor change)
> [ ] Apache Wicket 2007
> [ ] Apache Wicket r59332 (just use the damned revision number)
No major new API will justify the change to 2.0, and 2.0 might be a
confusing name as we just discontinued it. 2.0 makes me think of
a child prematurely born dead.
If we consider that an API break justifies bumping the major
version number, we should already have renamed 1.3 to 2.0.
As it seems API break doesn't imply major version number change,
why would you do it for 1.4 and not for 1.3?
Furthermore bumping a major version number often means we're
providing brand new features, not just introducing Java 1.5
syntax, as there is no real added value to that except increased
comfort.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
