Hi Nikita! Both sound very reasonable to me, so +1 for that.
Will there be any backward-compatibility breaking changes in 5.x? Thanks, mrg On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 3:04 AM Nikita Timofeev <ntimof...@objectstyle.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Wanted to share a couple of my thoughts about changes that could be good > for Cayenne. And the first milestone release of Cayenne 5.0 could be a > perfect target for these changes. > > 1. Get rid of the `server` part in the names everywhere, starting by > renaming our core dependency from `cayenne-server` to just `cayenne`. > As we already removed the `client` counterpart, `server` just doesn't make > sense anymore. > > 2. Change of the versioning schema we use for the development cycle. A > short version of the proposal: drop BETA versions, keep the version of > snapshot build always the same, and slightly change format to articulate > what is the actual version. > > Format would look like `MAJOR.MINOR-QUALIFIER`. Where the qualifier is one > of `SNAPSHOT`, `M` for the milestone or `RC` for the release candidate. > > Example for the 5.0: > - snapshot always stays as 5.0-SNAPSHOT > - milestones releases are 5.0-M1, 5.0-M2 etc. > - release candidates are 5.0-RC1, 5.0-RC2, etc. > - and final release is just 5.0 > > And here's a reason for that change. It solves two minor problems with the > current schema. The first one is that all systems think that `B` goes > before `M`, so our beta versions always look older than milestones. We are > not that strict about what is beta nor are we enforcing any rules, so there > should be no problems with that. > The second one is that projects using SNAPSHOT versions should update > dependency every time we make a dev release. Again not a big change and > should not affect anything really, as there shouldn't be many projects > brave enough to just use SNAPSHOT. > > Note this change does not affect overall versioning, e.g. patch versions > like 5.0.1 or global updates like 5.1. > > > -- > Best regards, > Nikita Timofeev >
