Ok, our end-of-the month release is now officially "1.0". Karl
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 from me to start releasing the next version as 1.0. > > Taking a look at the current algorithm used by Maven for comparing versions > [1], and at the Versioning page [2], I don't see any problem. > > Piergiorgio > > [1] - > http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.0.4/maven-artifact/xref/org/apache/maven/artifact/versioning/DefaultArtifactVersion.html > [2] - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning > > 2012/9/13 Karl Wright <[email protected]> > >> The more I think about this, the more I think we may well be able to >> segregate ManifoldCF into "major releases" over time. Some of the >> very large tickets (for example, multi-server crawling) will almost >> certainly have a big impact on practically everything ManifoldCF does. >> I propose, then, that our major releases coincide with these very >> significant framework changes. >> >> That would imply that we can continue to have 0.xxx releases for quite >> some time, but since we did not plan on such an arrangement in >> advance, and since we want tools like Maven to work with our version >> numbers, I propose that we begin the 1.xxx series of releases right >> now, in this current release. Furthermore, we would include a minor >> level for patch releases in each version number. For example: >> >> 1.0.0 - release on Sept 30 >> 1.1.0 - release on December 31 >> etc. >> >> The only question I have is what will Maven's version comparison logic >> do when it sees a version like this: >> >> 1.17.0 >> >> Hopefully it will recognize that this is a higher version than 1.2.0? >> Mavenistas, what say you? If Maven doesn't work right with this, we'd >> want to reserve digits in advance, e.g. >> >> 1.000.0 >> 1.001.0 >> >> >> Karl >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't think there are any hard rules about what constitutes a 1.0 >> > release, except perhaps some subjective measure of completeness, and >> > some measure of backwards compatibility support. For example, Lucene >> > insures that every major release number (3.x, 4.x) are >> > index-compatible. >> > >> > I don't know what the equivalent major release equivalent would be for >> > ManifoldCF. We have a mature database schema which self-upgrades, so >> > that is not going to work in the same way as Lucene indexes. We >> > *could* just keep counting: 0.7, 0.8. 0.9, 0.10, 0.11 etc. But that >> > gets cumbersome too. >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Taking a look at all the recent fixes, I think that we could release a >> new >> >> version of ManifoldCF because there are many improvements: >> >> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+CONNECTORS+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%22ManifoldCF+0.7%22+AND+status+%3D+Resolved+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC&mode=hide >> >> >> >> I don't know what rules are defined for calling it as "1.0", but in the >> >> meanwhile we could release a 0.7 version. >> >> Personally I think that this new release could be named 1.0, but this >> is my >> >> feeling :) >> >> >> >> Piergiorgio >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/8/27 Karl Wright <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> Hi Folks, >> >>> >> >>> It's already time to start winding down the 0.7 release. >> >>> >> >>> Before this is done, I think we need the following: >> >>> >> >>> (1) Voting on the current outstanding SharePoint-2007 plugin release. >> >>> Still need 2 votes. >> >>> (2) Completion of, and voting on the new SharePoint-2010 plugin >> release. >> >>> (3) Completion of all outstanding tickets marked "Fix in ManifoldCF >> 0.7". >> >>> >> >>> I'd also like to explore what the criteria should be for calling a >> >>> release "1.0". It seems to me that Jukka and others might have an >> >>> idea of when this would be appropriate. Does anyone have any thoughts >> >>> on this matter? >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Karl >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Piergiorgio Lucidi >> >>> http://www.open4dev.com >> >>> >> >>> >> > > > > -- > Piergiorgio Lucidi > http://www.open4dev.com
