On Jun 2, 2011, at 5:55 AM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to echo Zoe's comments. I know you are hitting problems > in trunk, but I think we need to identify the exact list of problems > and address them in trunk rather than the defunct 0.3 branch which > should really be deleted. > > The problem with using a 0.3.0.1-SNAPSHOT in the 0.3 branch is that > the OSGi semantic versions use a major.minor.micro.qualifier model. In > this model 0.3.0 is versioned according to numerical progression, and > 1-SNAPSHOT is a String.compareTo. The ordering would be fine until we > wanted a 0.3.0.10-SNAPSHOT at which point, I think 0.3.0.10-SNAPSHOT > would be treated as less than 0.3.0.2-SNAPSHOT which is not what we > want.
A few comments: Tim, in response to your earlier email -- I don't think there would be any complaints about your fixes (or the speed of your fixes). Or, for that matter, anyone else's code in trunk. I expect there to be issues like this on a development *trunk*. So, no worries about any issues that are being uncovered... Except, the issue is that we're forced to pick up fixes on a development *trunk*... We found a problem with 0.3.0. The fix is relatively minor. Instead of being able to fix the problem on a stable "branch", we're forced to pick up a lot of new code on a development "trunk". It introduces instabilities that we don't need and probably puts us on a release schedule that is further out than we might desire. If I understand correctly, your major reason for this restriction is that after 9 more micro releases, we're going to have a version ordering problem? So, we shouldn't have any micro releases at all? > > As Zoe said we had a long discussion and a vote regarding this issue. > The discussions are archived and below are some links that hook into > the archive of the discussions and the final vote: OK. So, apologies for hashing/re-hashing the subject... And yes, I'm negligent of not paying close attention to the various discussions. But that doesn't mean we can't be discussing now... If a 0.3.0 cannot be generated, then so be it... Just help us understand why... --kevan
