+1 from me for a more intuitive scheme :)
2011/2/7 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>: > 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 >
