On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:41:24PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 6:17 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > > >I totally get your point, but the thing I don't like about that style > >for pre-1.0 software is that it is essentially a countdown to 1.0, and > >we can't predict how many releases it's going to take. Then you just > >naturally start adding dots to the end of the release number when you > >hit 9 and you end up with versions like 0.9.2 or 0.9.5.3. > > Ah! The Castor "Asymptotically Approach 1.0" Version Scheme :)
Not just Castor, OpenEJB pulled a Mozilla on version numbers too. Not something I'm proud of. > > Well, that is a danger, but I think that we're getting there.... > > > > >It's like when kids play hide-and-go-seek. If the kid counting wants > >more time he starts yelling off fractions when they hit 9, "7... 8... > >9... 9 and 1/2... 9 and 3/4...." > > > >I'd prefer we be more aggressive with the milestones (however many we > >need) until we are ready to muster up a release candidate (RC) that we > >expect to be the final 1.0 release baring any critical issues. Then > >we do dot revisions for the remainder of the 1.x branch releases. > > > >When work starts on 2.x, we issue milestones on that till it's ready > >for an RC and final. Dot revisions after that. Same for 3.x, 4.x and > >so on. > > Where else have you seen it done this way? I'm used to 0.x -> 1.0 -> > 1.x -> 2.0 - > .... > Yanked the idea from Eclipse. -David
