On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Should we do like the server releases?
The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
releases introduce the third digit, like -
2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ....
For now, I'd like to focus on the central question I asked originally,
which was about getting some consistency in the spec version numbering.
I like Donald's suggestion. If implemented, here are the things that
would change:
Changing from 1.0.0 to 1.0:
geronimo-ccpp_1.0_spec
geronimo-ejb_3.1_spec
geronimo-interceptor_1.1_spec
geronimo-jaxrs_1.1_spec
geronimo-osgi-support
geronimo-stax-api_1.2_spec
NOTE: If the changes goes the other way (1.0 changed to 1.0.0), a
larger number of specs need to be changed.
Changing from 2-digit release numbers to 3 digit:
geronimo-jaspic_1.0_spec (changes from 1.1 to 1.0.1)
geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec (changes from 1.1 to 1.0.1)
geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec (changes from 1.7 to 1.0.7). A corresponding
change will be made with the provider and uber jar.
geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec (changes from 1.1 to 1.0.1)
I'd like to start the release process for the spec jars very early next
week, so I'd like to make this change this week. If there are no
objections to these changes, I'll make them tomorrow morning.
Rick
Bigger question, is what does OSGi want? When we set version ranges
like [1.0,2.0) does having 1.0 vs. 1.0.1 artifacts matter?
-Donald
On 4/6/10 10:05 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
I've been going through and doing some release dry runs on the spec
projects, and I've noticed that there is an inconsistency with the
release numbering. Some of the projects use a two level release number
(e.g., 1.0), while others use a three level numbering system (e.g.,
1.0.0). It would be nice to make these consistent, and since we're
going to be releasing most of these shortly, now seems like a good time
to do this.
So, the question I have is which system should we use? Many projects
use a 3-level system, but in the case of the specs, I don't believe we
ever really use the middle digit when 3 levels are used. That generally
would only occur when there are functional enhancements to the spec,
which generally results in a new subproject getting created to reflect
the spec number change.
So, should we:
[] Convert everything to two-digits
[] Convert everything to three-digits
[] Leave things the way they are
If the consensus is we're fine the way we are, then the next question is
whether we should be using two or three digits for newly created spec
projects.
Rick
