+1 I think most folks understand that a: * x or x.0 release is a major release, may not be backward compatible with previous releases. * x.y or x.y.0 is a minor release with bug fixes some enhancements but is backward compatible with x.0 * x.y.z is bug fix release which should only contain bug fixes and is just used to stabilize the x.y.0 release
but of consistency we should include all 3 number in the release so a major would be x.0.0 On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Jim Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Gary, > I don't know anything about the ActiveMQ release process, but I will > chime-in on the version numbering. I think the three-digit numbering should > be kept. It makes things very consistent. I am not a fan of long strings > of version numbers, but I think the three digits are the minimum necessary > to convey all of the import information about the build. If we know that > there might be minor rev numbers (i.e., the third digit), then that number > should always be present for easier sorting/comparison either by a human or > a computer. > > That's my $0.02.0 cents. :) > > - Jim > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Gary Tully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> In cutting a first release candidate of AMQ 5.2 two small issues arise >> that mean a re-cut. >> >> 1) I accepted the maven release default version numbers, and based of >> the parent pom the svn tag is activemq-parent-5.2. >> I guess I should have inserted a different value at the prompt during >> release to make it activemq-5.2 , but is a little error prone. >> I am wondering if the parent pom changed its name to activemq, how >> damaging would that be? >> From a release perspective, it means that we just hit return (accept >> defaults) during the release execution. >> Maven activemq dependencies are typically on activemq-core. Would >> anyone notice a change to the name of the parent pom? >> >> >> 2) the number of digits in the version number, why the extra 0? >> I see 4.1, then 5.1.0, but in the poms, we have 5.2. Has this been >> discussed and what is the outcome? I like the idea of keeping the >> version digits at a minimum. >> 5.1, 5.1.0, 5.1.1 etc. but not 5.1.0. >> >> FWIW, the current candidate is at: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~gtully/staging-repos/activemq-5.2/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/5.2 >> >> Thanks, >> Gary. >> > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
