commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <>
Subject [SCXML] Next major version number required package rename needed?
Date Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:06:00 GMT
On 10/10/2013 09:39 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Ate Douma <> wrote:

>> Case in point: SCXML
>> If we are allowed to start working on this component shortly, we intend to,
>> and HAVE to switch to a 1.0 version first, as there already is a 0.9 version
>> release out, while we will need to move to newer JDK and incompatible API
>> changes anyway. At the same time, getting a final/stabalized 1.0 release out
>> most certainly will take several iterations.
> <snip/>
> Release version comparisons being what the are, we could go to v0.10,
> as in below (greater than sign implies more recent release version):
> 0.11 > 0.10 > 0.9

For the intended promotion of the SCXML J6 branch to trunk, I don't think that 
would align with the Commons versioning scheme.

The SCXML J6 branch (which currently already uses version 1.0-SNAPSHOT) imposes 
API breaking changes from the 0.9 release, as well as targets a newer JDK (1.6+).
AFAIK this will require a major version bump, hence should target version 1.0.

I thus intend to roll out a first intermediate release of this new trunk as 
version 1.0-alpha-1 (as discussed earlier today in a separate thread).

What however is still unclear to me is if this also requires a package rename, 
e.g. move from org.apache.commons.scxml.* -> org.apache.commons.scxml1.* ?

I got the impression from other discussions as well as from looking at other 
components recent major versions, that this now also is a rule or policy within 
Commons. But I can't find any specific writing about such 'policy'.
At least the online Versioning document doesn't say anything about it, or I must 
be blindly overlooking it.

So my question is: is such package rename now a required rule, or more of a 

And if this was established as a formal requirement, can someone point me out 
the documentation (or maybe VOTE thread) for it?

Thanks, Ate

> Not very different than, say the following, which may appear more
> intuitive for release versions (agree 0.x line is trickier):
> 2.11 > 2.10 > 2.9
> Overall, I think it's OK to go the 0.10 route, if you want to save a
> 1.0 major release for later at a point it's really needed.
> In hindsight, the first Commons SCXML release could've been 0.1
> (rather than 0.5) to give more room for 4 more releases before getting
> to this point :-)
> -Rahul

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message