I think that there should be ONE strict naming system that every commiter has to obey whether writing a high-profile article or an informan email. Such a system will indeed serve as a tool to help clarify versions. After all, when I say for example "Struts 2" I do not want to explain later have I meant only Struts 2.x or Struts 2.x+. Having a system is usually a good thing.
On 7/5/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you are over-thinking this one. Struts is a single product with multiple versions. Since both are still developed, at times, it is helpful to refer to Struts 2.0 as Struts 2 and Struts 1.x as Struts 1, but these names are really optional and a tool to help clarify versions. In the end, we just have Struts. As for this particular API issue, I just threw Struts 1 in there to perhaps make it clearer, but looking at it again, I don't think it did. "Struts Core 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT API" is much better, in my opinion. Don Michael Jouravlev wrote: > I hate to bring this question back, but do we have a final decision on > how 1.x and 2.x codebases are treated name-wise and what is the > official way to refer to a product/version? > > Because seems that Don, for example, have a different idea on naming: > > "I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, > etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single > project, > getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". > There > will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and > perhaps > some day, Struts 3.x releases." > > I would prefer having Struts 1 and Struts 2 *names* as you stated, but > to Don and some others these are just different *versions of one > product* , and apparently should be written as Struts 1.x or Struts > 2.x > > [ Approach 1: generations/branches ] > > * Struts 1.x, 2.x and any consecutive codebases is collectively called > Struts Framework (full name) or just Struts (short name). BTW, Have > we decided to drop "Action" or the full official name is Struts Action > Framework? > * Struts 1.x codebase is collectively called Struts 1 where "1" is > part of the name. > * Struts 2.x codebase and any concecutive codebases is collectively > called Struts 2; "2" is part of the name. > > [ Approach 2: one unified product] > > * Struts 1.x, 2.x and any concecutive codebases is collectively called > Struts Framework (full name) or just Struts (short name). > * Struts 1.x codebase is collectively called Struts 1.x where "1.x" > designates version range. > * Struts 2.x codebase is collectively called Struts 2.x where "2.x" > designates version range. > * Same pattern goes for future codebases. Therefore there are no > official "Struts 1" or "Struts 2" names/products. > > Few people see what happens in SVN. But documentation is highly > visible, and we must choose one approach and follow it strictly. I > prefer the first one because it assumes that 1.x codebase is not > immediately replaced with 2.x codebase and still can be developed > separately (yes, this is marketing stuff). Anyway, I will obey any > decision, we just need to make *one*. Have I missed it? After the > final naming decision is made, proper names MUST be used in Javadocs, > site docs, public emails and in other places. > > [ Code Names ] > > Codenames like "Classic" for 1.x codebase is a separate issue and this > too must be finally dicided on. We discussed it many times, but have > the official and final decision been made? We need to chose official > (while optional) names and use only them or not use any codenames at > all. > > Michael. > > On 7/2/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It might appear redundant but "Struts 1" is the name rather than >> version number and hopefully what people will get used to distinguish >> between the two flavours on offer. Its no different than what Sun did >> when they introduced Java 2 and who knows where out version numbers >> are going to go in the two parts. That in itself is good enouh reason >> to leave it IMO - but also I'm against overriding the defaults of the >> build unless absolutely necessary - that way if things change in the >> future theres less places to remember. If we'd done this in the >> previous year we would have had to correct it 3 or 4 times! >> >> Niall >> >> >> On 7/2/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Wendy, thanks. I understand the proposal. Version 1 is already in >> 1.3.5; so it doesn't need to be said everytime; the version number is >> enough to indicate its version 1. >> > >> > Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/2/06, Paul Benedict >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Does anyone else find this kind of title redudant? >> > > Struts 1 - Core 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT API >> > > We can specify it in the pom. I recommend: >> > > Struts Core 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT API >> > >> > This change results from Don's proposal thread [1] about renaming >> > Struts Action -> Struts, in which I believe the consensus was to go >> > with 'Struts 1' and 'Struts 2'. >> > >> > [1] >> http://www.nabble.com/-PROPOSAL--Rename-Struts-Action-as-Struts-tf1864462.html >> >> > >> > -- >> > Wendy > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]