I've added a sample versioning table to show how they will be enumerated between snapshots and releases.
J On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems that it would be the consensus. > We need to update the release guide to reflect that I think. > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 22:42, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >> ok, what's the result? :) Go back to the more natural style: >> >> 1.0-SNAPSHOT -> 1.0 -> 1.1-SNAPSHOT -> 1.1 ...? >> >> kind regards, >> andreas >> >> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:09:36AM +0100, Andreas Pieber wrote: >>> Hey, >>> >>> We've decided some time ago now to step from one version to the other and >>> not >>> jumping releases in between like felix does. Therefore we use quite >>> "strange" >>> snapshot versions (e.g. 2.99.99-SNAPSHOT for 3.0.0 or 2.1.99-SNAPSHOT for >>> 2.2.0). But on the 2.1.x branch we use 2.1.4-SNPASHOT for 2.1.4. Well, I >>> think >>> something is wrong here :) >>> >>> IMHO we can either use 2.1.3.99-SNAPSHOT for 2.1.4 or simply switch back at >>> 2.0.99-SNAPSHOT after releasing; in other words we have two options: >>> >>> 2.1.3.99-SNAP -> 2.1.4 -> 2.1.4.99-SNAP -> 2.1.5 >>> 2.0.99-SNAP -> 2.1.4 -> 2.0.99-SNAP -> 2.1.5 >>> >>> I slightly prefer the first method since it maps the versions we choose for >>> all >>> other snapshots but basically I'm indifferent :) >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> kind regards, >>> andreas >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com >
