Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-14 Thread Matt Hogstrom
I've seen several posts about the upcoming 1.0.x release and 1.1 and 2.0 etc. lately and I think its great that we're having these discussions. I'd like to use this thread to aggregate people's thoughts about this topic in a single thread for reference and clarification as we make forward progr

Re: Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-14 Thread lichtner
To me the only important requirements in release numbers are that they should tell the user: 1. Whether the release is backward compatible. 2. Whether it's a stable build vs. unstable. I would rather not to have to learn the various meanings of digits 1-N. It seems like it would make it more tr

Re: Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-15 Thread Greg Wilkins
Matt Hogstrom wrote: > First, I see there is a structure for versioning like: > > v.r.m[.f] where: > > v = Version > r = Release > m = modification > f = fix (optional) Another minor point - these names are a bit unwieldy and it is difficult to say: 1.0 is the version of a Version release.

Re: Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-15 Thread Greg Wilkins
Matt, good initiative! I would like to see the philosophy include a bit of process about how a version is create. For example a believe a fix release should definitely be created by the application of a few carefully QA'd patches to an existing released branch of the code. More over, I would l

Re: Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-15 Thread Alan D. Cabrera
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 1/14/2006 9:02 PM: I've seen several posts about the upcoming 1.0.x release and 1.1 and 2.0 etc. lately and I think its great that we're having these discussions. I'd like to use this thread to aggregate people's thoughts about this topic in a single thread for referenc

Re: Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-15 Thread Brian McCallister
APR's versioning guidelines are an awfully good practice, in my experience. http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html -Brian On Jan 15, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 1/14/2006 9:02 PM: I've seen several posts about the upcoming 1.0.x release and 1.1 and 2.0

Re: Release and Version Philosophy [Discussion]

2006-01-16 Thread Paul McMahan
APR's guidelines look very reasonable to me.  Adopting them (perhaps with a few minor tweaks or clarifications) would have the added benefit of aligning Geronimo with an existing Apache standard/practice, which I think end users will certainly appreciate. Best wishes, Paul On 1/15/06, Brian McCal