On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Cameron Braid wrote:
>
>> JBoss use a naming scheme that sorts alphabetically, maybe it is worth
>> considering
>>
>> http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/downloads/
>>
>> Applied to the names in the original email
>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Cameron Braid wrote:
> JBoss use a naming scheme that sorts alphabetically, maybe it is worth
> considering
>
> http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/downloads/
>
> Applied to the names in the original email
>
> 1) gwt-2.0.0-m1.zip
> 2) gwt-2.0.0-m2.zip
> 3) gwt-2.0.0-rc1.
Thanks for pointing us to that Cameron.
Cheers,
Andrew
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Cameron Braid wrote:
> JBoss use a naming scheme that sorts alphabetically, maybe it is worth
> considering
>
> http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/downloads/
>
> Applied to the names in the original email
>
> 1) gw
Just for info, JBoss guys use to suffix releases with "GA" (General
Availability)"hibernate-3.4.0.GA" for example
2009/8/28 Andrew Bowers
> The current problem we are trying to solve is that it is hard to know which
> build is a major release for those who aren't intimate.
> For 1.6, the golden
JBoss use a naming scheme that sorts alphabetically, maybe it is worth
considering
http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/downloads/
Applied to the names in the original email
1) gwt-2.0.0-m1.zip
2) gwt-2.0.0-m2.zip
3) gwt-2.0.0-rc1.zip
4) gwt-2.0.0.zip
They could be :
1) gwt-2.0.0-Beta1.zip (or could j
The current problem we are trying to solve is that it is hard to know which
build is a major release for those who aren't intimate.
For 1.6, the golden release was 1.6.4, which is thoroughly confusing to a
general user who doesn't follow the development cycle. If you only care
about the final relea
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Kelly Norton wrote:
> fwiw, I've never found myself sorting GWT distros but I do find myself
> wanting to uniquely identify them all the time. Why do you think people will
> be so eager to ignore part of the label? I would actually be surprised if
> any form of na
> -- Example #1 --
> Please sort the following two lists chronlogically as quickly as you can:
> List 1: "1.6.2", "1.6.5", "1.6.0", "1.6.1"
> List 2: "2.0.0-rc2", "2.0.0-ms2", "2.0.0", "2.0.0-rc1"
This should be trivial for anyone familiar with the concepts of
milestone and release candidate buil
fwiw, I've never found myself sorting GWT distros but I do find myself
wanting to uniquely identify them all the time. Why do you think people will
be so eager to ignore part of the label? I would actually be surprised if
any form of naming fixes the few incidences of the conversation you mention.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Scott Blum wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>
>> Senator Blum,
>>
>> Do you mean "disturbing" as in
>> 1) revolting,
>> 2) distressing, or
>> 3) disordering?
>>
>
> Distressing, I think.
>
> -- Example #1 --
>
> Please sort the follo
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Senator Blum,
>
> Do you mean "disturbing" as in
> 1) revolting,
> 2) distressing, or
> 3) disordering?
>
Distressing, I think.
-- Example #1 --
Please sort the following two lists chronlogically as quickly as you can:
List 1: "1.6.2", "
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> The version update notification thing is admittedly a problem, and so it's
> true we maybe would need to tweak that. Not changing code most certaily
> wasn't the justification for the naming scheme I proposed (slap me the day I
> let that be
I'm by no means a maven expert, but I use it for my builds. Maven uses the
following version format:
..-
qualifier can be anything like "rc1" or "mac", for example, the way the
gwt-dev-*.jars are placed in the repo is:
com.google.gwt
gwt-dev
1.7.0
mac
maven would then expect a gwt-dev-1.7.0-ma
The version update notification thing is admittedly a problem, and so it's
true we maybe would need to tweak that. Not changing code most certaily
wasn't the justification for the naming scheme I proposed (slap me the day I
let that be a reason to justify a lame approach).
Alternate proposals, nay
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Senator Blum,
>
> Do you mean "disturbing" as in
> 1) revolting,
> 2) distressing, or
> 3) disordering?
>
> It seems that mathematics has successfully survived similar notational
> issues, such as the whole X vs. X' thing.
>
I dislike the f
Senator Blum,
Do you mean "disturbing" as in
1) revolting,
2) distressing, or
3) disordering?
It seems that mathematics has successfully survived similar notational
issues, such as the whole X vs. X' thing.
Willing to give it a chance?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Scott Blum wrote:
> I fi
I find the fact that "2.0.0" is now ambiguous to be disturbing, admiral.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's own
> build-related stuff, but if anyone else has objections, now would be a good
> time to rai
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Isaac Truett wrote:
> And on topic, +1 for the new version names. Has anyone talked to the
> maven crowd about this? They seem to usually have an opinion on naming
> schemes.
No, but I hope someone knowledgeable will comment. The scheme I'm proposing
is intentio
This reminds me of a thread I saw recently on whether the value 1 in a
foo_percentage database column meant 100% or 0.01%.
And on topic, +1 for the new version names. Has anyone talked to the
maven crowd about this? They seem to usually have an opinion on naming
schemes.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at
Duh, Kelly. Everybody knows that you always start counting at 1 when there's
a number immediately following a space or a non-digit and you start counting
at 0 when there's a number that immediately follows a period. It's such a
logical and obvious system that I thought the rules would be self-evide
Just add this at the top of all documents to get what you're looking
for: OPTION
BASE 1
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Kelly Norton wrote:
> No, no, Joel, we will start counting at 1 not 0. The first release will be
> gwt-2.1.1-m1.
> I think the naming scheme is good (even if sometimes starts
No, no, Joel, we will start counting at 1 not 0. The first release will be
gwt-2.1.1-m1.
I think the naming scheme is good (even if sometimes starts with 0, other
times with 1).
/kel
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Joel Webber wrote:
> Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0,
Exactly :-)
On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Joel Webber wrote:
> Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0, right?
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's own
> build-related stuff, but if
Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0, right?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's own
> build-related stuff, but if anyone else has objections, now would be a good
> time to raise them
24 matches
Mail list logo
