On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I prefer the httpd style too (but no real issue with the maven one). > A release is a release. IHMO we don't need to use some "marketing" names > :-).
It seems that we need to revisit this topic. :) IMO if we're going to release early and (fairly) often, we need a way to communicate quality/stability to users. My preference is to do 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and to "label" them (alpha/beta/milestone/GA) in the release announcement and download page. This means that 1.3.0 doesn't have to be feature complete, and that we may skip versions if a problem is found and a vote doesn't pass. Another option is the way Archiva has decided to do it, with milestones 1.3-M1, 1.3-M2, 1.3 then 1.3.1, 1.3.2 patch releases. Here we need to avoid reusing version numbers, so we might need a release candidate process in order to make sure "1.3" doesn't get built over and over. Are there any modifications to the above, or other versioning schemes we should consider? Thanks, -- Wendy
