This reminds me of a thread I saw recently on whether the value 1 in a foo_percentage database column meant 100% or 0.01%.
And on topic, +1 for the new version names. Has anyone talked to the maven crowd about this? They seem to usually have an opinion on naming schemes. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Bruce Johnson<br...@google.com> wrote: > Duh, Kelly. Everybody knows that you always start counting at 1 when there's > a number immediately following a space or a non-digit and you start counting > at 0 when there's a number that immediately follows a period. It's such a > logical and obvious system that I thought the rules would be self-evident. > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Kelly Norton <knor...@google.com> wrote: >> >> No, no, Joel, we will start counting at 1 not 0. The first release will be >> gwt-2.1.1-m1. >> I think the naming scheme is good (even if sometimes starts with 0, other >> times with 1). >> /kel >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Joel Webber <j...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0, right? >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's >>>> own build-related stuff, but if anyone else has objections, now would be a >>>> good time to raise them (though it seems unlikely anyone would). >>>> In the past, we've never had a good naming scheme for distros other than >>>> the "general availability" distro. >>>> For milestones, we used the convention "0.0.<rev>", which probably scares people off and isn't at all self-descriptive. For RCs >>>> and GAs, we used "<major>.<minor>.<bugfix>" (e.g. 1.5.0 was 1.5 RC1, 1.5.1 >>>> was 1.5 RC2, and 1.5.2 was GA). This is all too ad hoc and confusing. >>>> Here's the new proposal: >>>> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix> (e.g. 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2) >>>> => This is an official, supported build. Every new minor (or bigger) >>>> release would start with a bugfix number of "0". >>>> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-rc<n> (e.g. 2.0.0-rc1, 2.0.0-rc2) >>>> => This is release candidate build "n" for the specified upcoming GWT >>>> release >>>> <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>-m<n> (e.g. 2.0.0-m1, 2.0.0-m2) >>>> => This is milestone build "n" for the specified upcoming GWT release >>>> In other words, the stream of announced code drops for 2.0 will look >>>> like this (assuming 2 milestone and 1 rc): >>>> 1) gwt-2.0.0-m1.zip >>>> 2) gwt-2.0.0-m2.zip >>>> 3) gwt-2.0.0-rc1.zip >>>> 4) gwt-2.0.0.zip >>>> Note that we would always include the RC number, even if there's just >>>> one (because you never know if another one is coming). >>>> I'm very happy to report that there seems to be no need to change even a >>>> single line of code, as best I can tell. (Thank you to whomever wrote the >>>> version string parsing code to ignore non-digit prefixes and suffixes.) >>>> Thus, by simply following this convention when we set GWT_VERSION in the >>>> continuous build, everything should work just fine. >>>> -- Bruce >>>> P.S. No, Joel, we can't start counting at 0, even though it makes more >>>> sense :-) I can read your mind. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one >> free ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all >> relevant SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy >> treat. We'll have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of >> ping pong. (offer may not be valid in all States). > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
