have update the release guide, all good. thanks.
2008/9/9 Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +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 >
