[IMAGING] Add another backward incompatible change pre alpha2

["Bruno P. Kinoshita" <ki...@apache.org>]

Hi all,
We have added one binary backward incompatible change since commons-imaging-1.0-alpha1. Which means commons-imaging-alpha2 will be both behavior and binary incompatible.
There was some discussion around alpha/beta releases rencetly-ish [1]
I am writing to confirm that we can add more BC incompatible changes. I believe there were some comments about having a per-component policy for what alpha & beta means, but we don't have a general consensus or policy.
So I prefer to check now, rather than have a release blocked, or have to revert changes.
The breaking change would be in a pull request contributed by a user: https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/pull/49
The contributor wrote an excellent pull request, and held back on breaking compatibility. But since we are already breaking BC, we could very well complete the PR and this way we would be closer to being compliant with the standard.

Thoughts?

Cheers
Bruno


[1] https://markmail.org/thread/drivqucdadxzfb3i

Re: [IMAGING] Add another backward incompatible change pre alpha2

[James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:15 PM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We do not have a 1.0, so it is OK to break BC IMO.


+1

Re: [IMAGING] Add another backward incompatible change pre alpha2

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

We do not have a 1.0, so it is OK to break BC IMO.

Gary

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:31 PM Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> We have added one binary backward incompatible change since
> commons-imaging-1.0-alpha1. Which means commons-imaging-alpha2 will be both
> behavior and binary incompatible.
> There was some discussion around alpha/beta releases rencetly-ish [1]
> I am writing to confirm that we can add more BC incompatible changes. I
> believe there were some comments about having a per-component policy for
> what alpha & beta means, but we don't have a general consensus or policy.
> So I prefer to check now, rather than have a release blocked, or have to
> revert changes.
> The breaking change would be in a pull request contributed by a user:
> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/pull/49
> The contributor wrote an excellent pull request, and held back on breaking
> compatibility. But since we are already breaking BC, we could very well
> complete the PR and this way we would be closer to being compliant with the
> standard.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers
> Bruno
>
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/thread/drivqucdadxzfb3i
>
>
>
>