On Jul 18, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
Jim Hurley wrote:
:
To segment these into more historical versions (versus
what we're going to create in the River project), I thought
it might be better to preface these with "JTSK_" (for example,
JTSK_1.0, JTSK_1.1). Let me know if someone has a better
idea.
The problem is indeed that *if* we are going to create multiple
deliverables for River we are a bit stuck with the fact we have one
project in JIRA and JIRA has no notion of subprojects. As version
numbers are tied to a project we have a problem, solving this with
prefixing is kind of ugly as are components, etc. and in that case I
would favor to ask for multiple projects we can group, such as Avalon,
Geronimo, etc. see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa .
Nevertheless I'm not that much in favor of prefixing the version
number
at this point with JTSK_ as we have no clear picture about what the
deliverables will be. And as version numbers can be renamed like
everything else in JIRA with great ease I think it is just fine to
stick
with what is in Bugtraq and change when we have that picture and it
turns out to be a problem.
I understand your point -- but these aren't version numbers for
*this* project, they are historical version numbers for another
release. If we just put them in as "1.0, etc", I think it will be hard
for people to understand what the version numbers that this project
has delivered (versus, version numbers present just so that we
can track when a bug/rfe had been submitted against years ago).
That's the only reason I wanted to preface the historical starter kit
version numbers.
This also tangentially raises the question on what we want our
first version number (that River will deliver) to be, so that we can
assign bugs to be fixed in that version. I know this also won't be
warmly received, but for now, I'll throw out "AR1" (Apache River 1).
-Jim
