jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Branching and release: version numbers
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:31:21 GMT
On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 13:24 +0000, Davide Giannella wrote:
> 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.

I was referring to your previous email [1] which listed

- incompatible changes in the JVM which we may have or want to use

My understanding is that this would be something like "make use of new
API available only from Java 11".  And that was listed as a reason for
branching.

As you mentioned, we don't need to increase the major version whenever
we branch. I just wanted to clarify that since in this email thread
branching seems to be conflated with major version increases and that
IMO not correct (and your reply seems to support that).

Thanks,

Robert

[1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/768807eed3379dc08921a1510264136ffe4a7a1230d9ca7881cc0a59@%3Coak-dev.jackrabbit.apache.org%3E


Mime
View raw message