Or *really* minor (bug fix releases) like 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, etc.
So I see the options as being some number (4 was mentioned and sounds reasonable to
me) of releases of the following (type) possibilities:
1. X.0.0 (Major version releases)
2. 0.X.0 (Minor releases)
3. 0.0.X (Minor maintenance releases)
I think multiple type (1) releases would be too aggressive and disruptive.
I think all four being type (3) releases is too low a bar.
So I'd vote for 4 releases per year that targets at most one type (1) and three type
(3) releases and between zero and four type (2) releases.
Or do we consider type (3) to be so minor as to be uncounted?
(so total of 4 where: ((type (1) <= 1) and (0 <= type (2) <= 4)))
Paul J. Reder
On 10/21/2010 08:16 PM, Rohit Kelapure wrote:
Does 4 releases mean four major releases like 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 3.0.0 or minor
ones like 1.1.0, 1.2.0 et al
--Thanks,
Rohit
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu<[email protected]>wrote:
Hi;
OpenEJB has been discussing release lifecycle! I think we can also discuss
it
for OWB. What do you think about the release cycle for OWB?
From my perspective, - 4 - release in one year is fantastico! But we also
think
about maintenance releases!
Thanks;
Gurkan
--
Paul J. Reder
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each
citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do
his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein
