Maybe it makes sense to use semantic versioning, as described here: http://semver.org/
If indeed the specs are major.minor then you can implement with major.minor.patch Greetings, Marcel On Aug 7, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Craig McClanahan <craig...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? >>>>>> >>>> >>
