Hey Ryan, As I remember they stick with major and minor only.
- Henry 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? > >> >> > >> >
