We've been discussing how to version releases over at Archiva, and seem to have settled on milestones -> final -> patch releases. No more -alpha and -beta designations in the filename.
Brett summarized the options and gave his opinions: > - Maven style (alpha, beta, final, point release) > - Eclipse style (M1, M2, M3, final, point release - though Eclipse don't have > the last ones) [Spring style then? -ws] > - httpd style (.0.0, .0.1, .0.2, .0.3) > And here are [Brett's] opinions: > - I'm tired of the Maven style. I've heard people actually saying it's ok to > break things because it's just an alpha. I would rather encourage development > practices that mean every release should be production quality. > - But I'm a realist - releases need broader testing to assess production > quality. > - milestones seem more akin to a set roadmap per release that gets done in > stages, rather than timeboxing > - httpd-style can be a little confusing to users, at least at first (will the > real release please stand up?). I think this is mitigated by only putting the > final final releases on release repo and mirrors > - httpd-style is not very effective for "milestones", since you end up making > the 20th or 30th release your first "real" release > - Hudson uses the extreme of the last style (everything is a feature release, > everything is a final release) My preference is httpd-style, where it's just a number and you apply a quality designation afterwards. But I can live with milestones. :) I _don't_ like baking the quality into the version number. Any thoughts on this for Continuum, before we simply go on using the strategy we inherited from Maven? -- Wendy
