Hi Jean... Every opinion is important in this community :)
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's time to > release something (some fixes are very important and the list is full). > > Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 ! > > Jean-Louis > > > mnour wrote: >> >> IMO we will not be able to sync OEJB releases versions the specs >> versions, because for sure we want and we do add new features to >> satisfy the needs of better EJB development using OEJB for our users. >> So documentation and release notices play a big role in that matter as >> it is the way users will know which EJB version(s) we support, this is >> beside the publicity that David talked about through whatever entity - >> InfoQ or TSS or both or someone else. I mean, lets follow the >> conventional versioning scheme, which is 3.x for new additions and >> features and 3.0.x for bug fixes, cause this is the expected scheme by >> most users, and we should not care - and we will not be able to follow >> the specs versions. But for this specific situation and for the sake >> of OEJB publicity , I vote for 3.1 release version as it will sound >> better in the ears of users and InfoQ and/or TSS readers as it is so >> related to the EJB 3.1 specs, but later we can follow our own release >> versioning as normal. >> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1. >>>>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 support? >>>>> 3.x or 4.0? >>>> >>>> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth. >>> >>> Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2 release... >>> Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be my point... ;-) >>> >>> Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor >>> starting >>> point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a notice, >>> wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also note that TSS >>> just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket. >>> >>> IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base >>> release >>> numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the project to >>> introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the ability of the JCP >>> to >>> generate new EJB spec version numbers. By convention, 3.0.1 would be a >>> bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New "features" do find their way into >>> bug-fix releases, but you'd usually expect most new features to appear in >>> 3.x releases. However, that doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow the >>> convention... Allowing 3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's >>> then a >>> matter of communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release >>> clearly communicates new function. >>> >>> I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts... >>> >>> Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases a >>> bit >>> further in advance would give committers a chance to target new >>> capabilities >>> for them, etc... >>> >>> --kevan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks >> - Mohammad Nour >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19254861.html > Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
