On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> get confused in the future.
less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
version monikers
once harmony hits versioned releases, these milestone train releases
are best forgotten. once they are numbered, releases have a nasty
habit of cropping up later and causing trouble.
the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
(when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.
Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make sense, or
> if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
+1
there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems
(i could go on)
- robert
