@Henry I would still like to make an attempt to stay aligned if we can. @Matt I don't understand the need for 2.5.1-alphaX, if we branch can't we just stick with 2.5.1-SNAPSHOT in trunk?
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 2013, at 20:03, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I am actually still +1 for just 2.5.1. We agreed that Shindig version will >> adhere to OpenSocial specs up to minor version which in this case is 2.5.x > > What about developing in trunk at 2.5.1-alphaX and branching for fixes in > 2.5.0-update1? > > I also think 2.5.1 should be relatively minor in changes to the software > itself. Ideally, only additions and no breaking changes to existing > interfaces, etc. > > >> >> - Henry >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Here is what I found on version numbers [1]. From what I gather after >>> reading that using 2.5.0.1 would be considered "non-standard". The >>> only downside to this would be the version numbers would be compared >>> as strings. We could use 2.5.0-fix1 which would be considered >>> standard, but I don't think that buys us anything with regards to >>> version comparison. I could pose a question to the Maven users list >>> and see if they have any advice. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Stanton Sievers <ssiev...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> +1. Shindig-1924 is one such cleanup. I also agree with staying in line >>>> with the spec. >>>> >>>> I would just want to make sure we have no technical or process issues >>> with >>>> maven artifacts (or the like) with 4 numbers in the version. >>>>> On Aug 5, 2013 7:29 PM, "Ryan Baxter" <rbaxte...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The current version of trunk is set to 2.5.1. I am wondering what >>>>> people think of changing that to 2.5.0.1? There are a few cleanup >>>>> changes that have already been identified that would be good to get >>>>> out there. At same time we want to stay in sync with the spec version >>>>> so I don't think we want to release 2.5.1 yet. What does everyone >>>>> think? >>>
