On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Thomas E Enebo <tom.en...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Wayne Meissner <wmeiss...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10 June 2011 06:47, Magnus Holm <judo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> application/library/something and be sure that it will work on any >>> JRuby 1.6.x. It means that JRuby can push out security and bug fixes >>> to the 1.6-branch even after 1.7 is released. >> >> None of what you described changes with date based major releases. >> You can still do maintenance branches and maintenance releases (e.g. >> 11.08.1, 11.08.2). >> >> The problem that needs to be avoided, is that people attribute too >> much significance to the numbers in a version (i.e. 2.0 == big >> change), when in reality with JRuby, releases are kind-of time based, >> is a distilling of whatever people were working on during that time >> period, and the version number chosen is simply the next one in a >> sequence. >> >> That semantic versioning proposal on the other hand, is not just a >> versioning scheme, but also a development methodology (somewhat >> resembling waterfall). Whilst that is suited to some forms of >> projects - i.e. libraries where you have a big design/stablization >> period pre-1.0.0, then change is very limited thereafter (or it makes >> it painful to do), it does not fit the reality of how JRuby is >> currently developed. > > Big.Significant.Bugfix has worked well for us for a couple of reasons: > > 1. As unclear as versioning can be, most people understand the first > and last digit of three digit numerical releases. When the first > number changes most people expect something really big or really cool. > People also expect it to be a time where they may be some breakage. > The last digit everyone seems to accept as bug fixes. This may not be > understood by 100% of developers, but I think it is more understood > than any other scheme. > > 2. Big.Significant.Bugfix is a really well-understood marketing tool. > We have worked with several marketing folks and press and those folks > understand this scheme. If we couple it with 1 above (developers > understand it), then it really makes sense to continue using the same > scheme.
I agree with this. And one more point on this. Version number format must be maven and OSGi friendly. This is important for embedders. -Yoko > > We will have big changes coming at some point and the major number > will come into play... > > my 2c, > > -Tom > > -- > blog: http://blog.enebo.com twitter: tom_enebo > mail: tom.en...@gmail.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
