FWIW an approach to version numbers I have seen a lot is that the major.minor version numbers match the spec being implemented (2.5 in this case), but anything after that is totally up to the implementation. So, 2.5.1 ... 2.5.2 ... etc. would be fine for improved implementations of the 2.5 spec.
It's also perfectly reasonable to think about 2.5.1-rc1 and 2.5.1-rc2 (and so on) for release candidates of 2.5.1 before a final 2.5.1 release. Craig On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Henry does JSF use revision numbers or do they stick to major and > minor version only? If the revision numbers are not going to match > anyways than maybe we shouldn't worry about calling the next Shindig > release 2.5.1. > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The next version of Shindig will contain the first release without PHP. > > I believe that's worth a bump in revision part of the version to 2.5.1. > > > > @Ryan, I would love to keep it in-sync but Shindig will move faster than > > spec development and it would be hard to keep up with the exact version. > > I believe other projects like Apache Tomcat and Apache MyFaces (latest > > release is 2.1.12 that implement JSF 2.1) that also implement open specs > > follow its release version up to certain levels. > > > > I like @Matt's idea, we could release 2.5.1-alphaX releases but final > > release should be 2.5.1 but branching early to add minor emergency fixes > > with 2.5.0-update1. > > > > - Henry > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:08 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? > >> >> > >> >
