Should we do like the server releases? The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance releases introduce the third digit, like - 2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ....
Bigger question, is what does OSGi want? When we set version ranges like [1.0,2.0) does having 1.0 vs. 1.0.1 artifacts matter? -Donald On 4/6/10 10:05 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > I've been going through and doing some release dry runs on the spec > projects, and I've noticed that there is an inconsistency with the > release numbering. Some of the projects use a two level release number > (e.g., 1.0), while others use a three level numbering system (e.g., > 1.0.0). It would be nice to make these consistent, and since we're > going to be releasing most of these shortly, now seems like a good time > to do this. > > So, the question I have is which system should we use? Many projects > use a 3-level system, but in the case of the specs, I don't believe we > ever really use the middle digit when 3 levels are used. That generally > would only occur when there are functional enhancements to the spec, > which generally results in a new subproject getting created to reflect > the spec number change. > > So, should we: > > [] Convert everything to two-digits > [] Convert everything to three-digits > [] Leave things the way they are > > If the consensus is we're fine the way we are, then the next question is > whether we should be using two or three digits for newly created spec > projects. > > Rick >
