-----Original Message----- From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 August 2006 21:28 To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Our milestone release
On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> >>>> What's wrong w/ milestone naming conventions? >>> >>> I'm not a fan. >>> >>> 1.0-M1, 1.0-M2, 1.0-M3... >>> >>> is really misleading, IMO, as they give a sense of it being ready to >>> go 1.0.... >> >> I'd prefer to use a stable (i.e., not automatically updated snapshot) >> version to work with. > > So would we. Just something would be better than nothing. I see. Well how about we come up with some sort of policy where we will only put up snapshots That are passing all tests etc. >> Also I really like the milestone numbering and don't think it implies >> being ready. It is just a milestone on a journey. > > Each to his own. I think that the version number should be a hint. > If yoko is that mature that calling it 1.0 is a good idea, that's > great. I know that with Geronimo, we made the mistake of calling the > basic kernel "1.0-M1", which really confused people since it was only > a display of the architectural ideas, and not a 1.0 candidate. For those of you that don't know, Geir and I have always disagreed on this. He thinks a milestone is means it is close, I think interpret a milestone as a checkpoint (like the milestone in a workflow or M$ project file). Anyway there is no reason to rehash this. => my interpretation of a snapshot is that it is only a checkpoint as well and that you will have a series of milestones that then lead to your 1.0 release. With each milestone more of the components become complete and aim for the functionality that you want to provide in your 1.0 release. -dain
