It does and fwiw incubation status should have nothing to do with the versioning scheme.
On Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Graham Charters <[email protected]> wrote: > I think at some point we should be adopting the semantic versioning > policy recommended by the OSGi Alliance. Versions under 1.0 seem to > be special (in the way we use them at the moment) and seem to imply > experimentation and no commitment to backward compatibility (or > incubating). However, on a component-by-component basis, we could > decide that they're "done" and release 1.0. Updates from then on > should follow the semantic versioning rules. > > Does that make sense? > > On 2 November 2010 23:10, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would go with releasing them at version 0.3, or have I missed the point? >> >> Alasdair >> >> Alasdair >> >> On 2 Nov 2010, at 21:14, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think when discussed that a while back, we decided to go with >>> individual lifecycles for Aries components. >>> I wonder what kind of versioning scheme do we want to follow for that. >>> The question arise because I'd like to have the mentioned components >>> released in the coming weeks, so unless we start doing a full release >>> again, we have to decide how do actually release individual >>> components. Also the Sling team would certainly be happy to have the >>> new jmx-whiteboard released as well. >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> ------------------------ >>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>> ------------------------ >>> Open Source SOA >>> http://fusesource.com >> > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
