On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 09:46, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > tbh I don't like the approach to skip versions. IMHO a higher version number > should present more stability and you simply assume that a X.X.1 > is more stable than a X.X.0 release and not that the X.X.1 release actually is > the X.X.0 release... Sry, but this sounds wrong somehow :)
I agree it's not an intuitive scheme. So we just have to decide if the benefits outnumbers the drawbacks or not. I don't have any problems if we as a team decide to go back to the plain and simple versioning scheme. > > kind regards, > andreas > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:11:42PM +1300, Mark Derricutt wrote: >> We've gotten into the habit of NEVER having .0 releases EVER. >> >> i.e. we always start with 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT, or 1.3.4.1-SNAPSHOT. This way a >> range of [2.0,3.0) works nicely. >> >> -- >> "Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson, >> Porcupine Tree >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > In OSGi, 2.2-SNAPSHOT > 2.2.0, so it can cause artifacts to be badly >> > wired against the snapshot instead of the release. So you can't >> > really deploy snapshots and releases at the same time. >> > On the other hand, it you build an artifact that import >> > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
