Hey Craig, nice to hear from you =) Yep, I am ok with that versioning scheme.
- Henry On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM, 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? > > >> >> > > >> > > >
