On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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.
I completely disagree with your views.
there's quite a few points in a short space. which ones do you disagree with?
> > 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
Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
version number.
AIUI maven and ivy both think that 1.0M1 comes after 1.0
(this is also true of many users)
- robert
