On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Heiko Seeberger < heiko.seeber...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > There has been a large amount of new stuff and also some breaking changes > since Lift 1.0. As an OSGi guy I suggest we call the next version Lift 2.0, > because increasing the major version number will show the world that there > are breaking changes and/or cool new features. At least, this is how > versions are used in OSGi land. OK, I know that Sun follows another version > strategy (keeping the major version fixed to 1 forever) and the Scala folks > also seem to be stick to 2.x (quite a lot people would like 2.8 to be 3.0), > but IMHO this is no reason for Lift to follow the same mislead strategy. So > what do you think? > I think version numbers are idiotic, and created by the marketing department, and not engineers. You just need a build number so you can tell if you're on the right version, and that's about it. As you point out, one mans 1.3 is another mans 2.0. The version number should be something like 20091231 to indicate just how old your version is. Anything else is just madness :) > > Heiko > > My job: weiglewilczek.com > My blog: heikoseeberger.name > Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger > OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org > Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net > > > > -- James A Barrows --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
