Plus, if we're really keen on OSGi support, note that OSGi assumes version numbers follow the semantic versioning scheme. Producers use an API like [1.1, 1.2), whereas consumers use an API like [1.1, 2.0). Yes, those are half-open intervals, and yes, that is the official notation. :)
On 3 February 2014 15:41, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it's not a > dumb > > version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm happy with it. > > Sticking with semver might be a good idea. Its a language many understand > and we should try to stick with that lanugage as well. > > > > > > > On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Keep it simple: 2.0. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> > >> -------- Original message -------- > >> From: Christian Grobmeier > >> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00) > >> To: Log4J Developers List > >> Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be? > >> > >> Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me > >> > >> On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> > >>> I had thought it would be 2.0. > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Nick Williams > >>>> <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers > >>>> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was > >>>> extendable!), and I need to know what the Maven artifact GA version > >>>> number will be. I print the new Maven artifacts used in each chapter > >>>> on the first page of the chapter as a guide to the user. Log4j is the > >>>> only library I'm using that isn't yet GA. I want to be sure the > >>>> version numbers I'm printing are correct. > >>>> > >>>> Here are the options that I can think of for the GA release: > >>>> > >>>> 2.0 > >>>> 2.0-GA > >>>> 2.0.GA > >>>> 2.0.Final > >>>> 2.0.RELEASE > >>>> 2.0.0 > >>>> 2.0.0-GA > >>>> 2.0.0.GA > >>>> 2.0.0.Final > >>>> 2.0.0.RELEASE > >>>> > >>>> So, which is it going to be? I assume that eventually we're going to > >>>> have a 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc., so it would seem to me that, whatever GA > >>>> is, it should start with 2.0.0. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense > >>>> to go from 2.0 to 2.0.1. However, all of our beta releases have been > >>>> 2.0-Betan. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> Nick > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >>>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >> > >> > >> --- > >> http://www.grobmeier.de > >> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL > >> @grobmeier > >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > --- > http://www.grobmeier.de > The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL > @grobmeier > GPG: 0xA5CC90DB > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
