users@jersey.java.net

RE: [Jersey] Releasing Jersey 1.1.5 on the week of Jan 18th

From: Markus Karg <markus.karg_at_gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:26:35 +0100

Tatu,

> >> Yes, when you know meaning of versions. But no, since you can not
> >> forecast in advance what the semantics are (not even necessarily for
> > This is not true. The sense of a version schema is to provide the
> > availability of forecasts. If one follows the Maven 2 best practices,
> then
> > any API change will result in either major or minor change, while all
> bug
> > fixes will not advance major nor minor but only bugfix or build
> parts. So
> > this IS predictable.
> You must have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

No I understood very well, but you did not carefully enough check the
version range I have written... see below.

> You said that you would use, say "all version between 2.0 and 4.x" are
> fine.

No I did not.

I proposed a version range that does *not* span multiple major releases *in
general*, but only bug fixes. The API is guaranteed to be stable then. Maybe
you missed the point that I only spanned over 2.0 and 3.0 because of the
particular guarantee of Paul that a *Jersey 3.0* (not *any* 3.0) will be
nothing else than a 1.2 API with a different number. Certainly if Paul would
not have suggested that, I would not major releases!

> I assume this would be done at time when only version 2.0 is
> available. That is the thing I claim is wrong. You would never want to
> define such a dependency.

As I wrote above, I wrote about explicitly about Jersey-3.0, which would be
guaranteed to be a 1.2 API and there would never be a 2.0 in-between. I did
not speak about *any software product*. Obviously there the range would
*not* cover major or minor releases.

> As per your own statements wrt. Maven this would seem unfounded and
> wrong -- how could you possibly know that version 3.0 has a drastic
> change that does not break your depending thing.

You could not and that is why I have not proposed it. Please check my actual
proposal again and you will see.

> As to rest of comments, we are obviously talking past each other -- I
> do not understand how you are reading my comments, nor how you get to
> your conclusions. I have no idea if we might agree or not.

It's not about talking past each other, it's about you not talking about the
range I proposed but about *any* range. Still this is a discussion about the
proposal of Paul doing a gap between 1.1.5 to 3.0, remember?

Regards
Markus