> On Aug 8, 2013, at 17:52, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@apache.org> wrote: > > Does anyone think it is work going to the OpenSocial list and asking > if post 2.5.1 we stick to using only major.minor versioning? This > allow Shindig to stick to use the revision field for updates that are > not necessarily spec related.
+1 > >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> The OpenSocial specs have major.minor.revision versioning scheme, so the >> discussion is either we follow OpenSocial versioning up to the "revision" >> or just major.minor. >> >> If we want to follow up to the "revision" part then we need to add >> "-updateXXX" or "rXXX" tail in Apache Shindig versioning which I think a >> bit ugly (see Hadoop release versions, ugh) >> >> - Henry >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Marcel Offermans < >> marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl> wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> >>>
