I have been saying that the trunk is too changed for 2.1 for a while also. I think having it as 3.0 is probably the logical thing to do and then we can really buckle 2.0 down as it should be and start making these bigger destabilizing fixes/small features to a 2.1 branch cut from 2.0.10. Unless 2.0.10 gets worked out real soon, perhaps we even go back to 2.0.9 and branch there (ie 2.0.10 becomes 2.1.0)
-----Original Message----- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:16 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1 development IRC roundtable) On 08/08/2008, at 12:24 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think it is only appropriate > to bump the first number when you make a major architecture change. It > was totally appropriate between 1.x and 2.x because the code bases are > absolutely incompatible. Why I should believe the same for TRUNK now? > It still looks like 2.1 -- evolution -- not 3.0 -- revolution. Let's > not forget this famous popular Apache email A significant advance would warrant a 3.0, incompatibility is not a requirement. If it can still be backwards compatible then all the better (though managed incompatibilities would be acceptable). Look at Jetty, Tomcat, etc. Some major releases required migration, some didn't. > http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html I definitely think that's a good way to operate, and it's a good, quick, read. Most of the work being proposed is operating under these rules to some extent. It's been done in the sandbox or branches for later proposal for inclusion/replacement of trunk. It's definitely revolutionary - every subsystem is being reviewed or replaced to give us the ability to fix some of the more challenging issues. Even though I'm sure there is consensus that is the right way to go, timing is the issue. There is not consensus that it should be Maven.NEXT. Right now our evolutionary track is 2.0.x, and that seems wrong to a lot of people. It limits us to very few improvements as folks are expecting only bugfixes, with good reason. But also our evolutionary track needs to be something we can release, and that's not trunk today. Taking 2.0.10 as a baseline and applying some sensible, well managed improvements (which may well include adopting the alternate project builder, for example, as well as others already mentioned) makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
