On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Should we do like the server releases?
The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
releases introduce the third digit, like -
2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,
For now, I'd like to focus on the central question I
I've been going through and doing some release dry runs on the spec
projects, and I've noticed that there is an inconsistency with the
release numbering. Some of the projects use a two level release number
(e.g., 1.0), while others use a three level numbering system (e.g.,
1.0.0). It would
Should we do like the server releases?
The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
releases introduce the third digit, like -
2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,
Bigger question, is what does OSGi want? When we set version ranges
like [1.0,2.0) does having 1.0 vs.
On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Should we do like the server releases?
The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
releases introduce the third digit, like -
2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,
That's certainly not what's been done. Going through
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Should we do like the server releases?
The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
releases introduce the third digit, like -
2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,
On 4/6/2010 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Should we do like the server releases?
The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
releases introduce the third digit, like
