On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:16 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 9/13/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The version would be 3.0-beta-1.
Version changed to 3.0-RC1.
Beta is the term most people liked. I looked up Release Candidate
just now to reality check with my gut understanding of it -- maybe
it's better -- but it doesn't seem to fit. Wikipedia's definition
of beta seems to fit well:
A beta version is the first version released outside the
organization or community that develops the software, for the
purpose of evaluation or real-world black/grey-box testing. [1]
I prefer beta, also.
I'm not sure whether or not the branch
name should reflect the version. I think it should. Once it passes a
final release vote the branch will be copied over to a tag, doesn't
it?
Right on both counts. We should even tack on "openejb" onto the
tag name just in case we release other things like eclipse plugins
or something.
hmm. well, i'd start considering maintaining a separate directory
structures at a higher level to avoid that kind of conflict...
openejb/container-server/trunk/
openejb/container-server/tags
openejb/eclipse-plugin/trunk
etc.
Assuming that we want to keep container and server together. So think
up a better name... ;-)
--kevan
