On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 8, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Nathan Beyer wrote:
> Of all the suggested version, I'd vote for - Apache Harmony Java SE
> 5 M1.
>
> If we have to worry about the name we could replace Java SE with
"JSE"
> or "java se".
>
> After the full release, we'll have to do something like "update
1" or
> whatever, so the run would look something like this, I guess.
>
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M2
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M3
> ...
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R1 (official release)
Have you ever seen that before anywhere else?
What do you mean? Other than your suggestion above, no.
I mean if you've ever seen someone call their release "R1"
> ...
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R2 (update/fix)
> Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R3 (update/fix)
>
> I'd also be cool with using 'alpha 1' and 'beta 1' instead of Mx.
I think of alpha and beta as "getting close" and we aren't there
yet.
How about "pre 1" "pre 2" "pre 3" so it's clear we aren't 1.0
yet, and then we don't have confusion later when we decide on a real
version naming scheme. I don't think we need to solve it all now.
I just want to get us going w/ the release train
g
eir
I agree. If we want to get away from this completely, just use a date
stamp (e.g. 20070307) and be done with it.
The reason why I brought up the naming so that we can plan forward in
time and have targetted milestones, each with a tentative date and a
set of features, improvements, bugfixes that we wish to get in there.
geir
-Nathan
