Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Yes this scheme is much more appealing. However I'm not into this
> milestone designation. I don't really see the point (perhaps someone
> might show me in this thread). Let me explain my thinking below.
>
> To me you either have a release or you don't release. With the httpd
> scheme above you have no need for milestone releases because 2.0.0,
> 2.1.0, 2.2.0 ... X.Y.0 are milestones in that they introduce new
No sure about that, httpd released a 2.3.5-alpha
> features. Hence the minor bump. The micro releases are just bug fix
> releases that do not introduce new features after the minor
> ("milestone") release. So this is why this httpd scheme does not need
> M1, M2 .. a la eclipse style releases.
I think milestones can be used to indicate that we are on the way to
2.0, but it's not ready yet.
As Emmanuel wrote, we have several tasks to do:
- documentation of the new features
- update the current documentation
- update the examples
- tooling
- bug fixing
- renew Open Group certification?
I'm in doubt we can do this within 3 weeks.
An M1 could indicate to our users: hey, ApacheDS now supports RFC 4533
replication and CiDIT. Help to test it. Test interoperability with
OpenLDAP. Provide feedback.
And for us it indicates: no more big-bang refactoring till 2.0 GA, but
we can still modify API during bug fixing.
> The next thing we need to talk about is what the major, minor and mico
> releases signify to our users. Here's how I look at it in terms of our
> user agreement:
>
> o major releases do not guarantee interoperability out of the box
> since internal and external interfaces, db formats, and the entire
> architecture may change
> o minor releases guarantee interoperability, interface integrity, db
> format consistency across releases with architectural stability. New
> features may be introduced and some features may be enhanced.
> o micro releases are simple bug fix releases which do not introduce
> anything new
+1
Kind Regards,
Stefan
