Version numbers...

I'd like to propose that we use a version number system like that used by bugzilla, namely that the head of CVS have an even minor number and milestone releases have the opposite, in addition "nightly" releases would have the same version number as the current CVS. Thus CVS is currently 2.0a2, wh

Version numbers

I understood that jakarta version numbers are x.x.x where x is a number, therefore 2.1 should be 2.1.? And since version numbers should always increment for every published build the released version should be 2.1.2 since we have used 2.1.1 for betas and release candidates. d. -- To

RE: Version numbers...

Should we vote on this? > -Original Message- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:50 AM > To: James Developers List > Subject: Version numbers... > > > I'd like to propose that we use a version number system

Re: Version numbers...

From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Should we vote on this? Silence to me is implicit 'I am ok with it'. at least a 0 or +1. For me it is +1. Harmeet -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

RE: Version numbers...

I'm kinda forging ahead on that basis, but silence from *everyone* is just a little off-putting ;-) > -Original Message- > From: Harmeet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:13 PM > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: Version numbers..

Re: Version numbers...

+1 :) Serge Knystautas Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites http://www.lokitech.com/ - Original Message - From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: RE: Versi

Re: Version numbers...

+1 - Original Message - From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 2:57 AM Subject: RE: Version numbers... > Should we vote on this? > > > -Original Messa

Re: Version numbers...

view of the CVS commit log messages, from within the CVS tree. ciao Daz - Original Message - From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 2:57 AM Subject: RE: Version numbers.

Re: Version numbers...

> I'd be happy to get a commit-changelog file working, as long as committers > are willing to update it when they make changes. The way I work is I to > enter my changes into the changelog once I'm happy with everything, and then > Cut&Paste that entry as my CVS commit log message. This gives us a

Re: Version numbers...

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:47, Darrell DeBoer wrote: > Actually (after voting +1), an alternative would be to just have the > version number in CVS something like "2.0a2-unreleased" (or even > "2.0a2-cvs"), and simply remove the "unreleased"/"cvs" extension when the > build is formally released. This

RE: Version numbers...

> > I'd be happy to get a commit-changelog file working, as long as committers > are willing to update it when they make changes. The way I work is I to > enter my changes into the changelog once I'm happy with > everything, and then > Cut&Paste that entry as my CVS commit log message. This gives

Re: Version numbers...

> we do have a changelog .. its in xdocs and is "built" with the rest of the > docs .. http://jakarta.apache.org/james/changelog.html > I like Pete's idea of generating a changelog from the cvs logs, > even if you then have to cut and paste the non-trivial changes into the > actual changelog doc i

RE: Version numbers

Danny, > I understood that jakarta version numbers are x.x.x where x is a number, > therefore 2.1 should be 2.1.? Ok, I guess. Although as I recall, Phoenix 4.0 was labeled 4.0 and not 4.0.0. But 2.1 or 2.1.0 is fine with me. > And since version numbers should always increment

RE: Version numbers

> This I don't agree with. You're right, and on re-reading I should've said.. it should be 2.1.1, as we've been using 2.1.1 from cvs, and this is considered to be the release cvs is working towards. There is a strict rule that numbers *MUST* increment, we've had this dicsussion before and cons

Re: Version numbers

Danny Angus wrote: This I don't agree with. You're right, and on re-reading I should've said.. it should be 2.1.1, as we've been using 2.1.1 from cvs, and this is considered to be the release cvs is working towards. Honestly, I think having the minor version shows that it's not a "bleeding ed

Re: Version numbers

Danny Angus wrote: This I don't agree with. You're right, and on re-reading I should've said.. it should be 2.1.1, as we've been using 2.1.1 from cvs, and this is considered to be the release cvs is working towards. There is a strict rule that numbers *MUST* increment, we've had this dicsuss

Re: Version numbers

I don't think this is a Jakarta standard. Major releases can be e.g Torque 3.0, Turboine 2.2 to quote from current jakarta home page. Charles Danny Angus wrote: I understood that jakarta version numbers are x.x.x where x is a number, therefore 2.1 should be 2.1.? And since version nu

Re: Version numbers

Peter M. Goldstein wrote: Danny, I understood that jakarta version numbers are x.x.x where x is a number, therefore 2.1 should be 2.1.? Ok, I guess. Although as I recall, Phoenix 4.0 was labeled 4.0 and not 4.0.0. But 2.1 or 2.1.0 is fine with me. And since version

Re: Version numbers

Aaron Knauf wrote: Danny Angus wrote: This I don't agree with. You're right, and on re-reading I should've said.. it should be 2.1.1, as we've been using 2.1.1 from cvs, and this is considered to be the release cvs is working towards. There is a strict rule that numbers *MUST* incremen

RE: Version numbers

Ok I give in! > -Original Message- > From: Charles Benett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 16 December 2002 10:23 > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: Version numbers > > > Aaron Knauf wrote: > > > > > > > Danny A