Resending with an email that is allowed to post to the spec list :) OpenSocial Spec List, please see my original email below, thanks.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@apache.org> wrote: > OpenSocial Spec List, > > Any interest in changing the way we version future spec releases? On > the Shindig dev list we are discussing what the next version of > Shindig should be. We want to stay aligned with the spec version to > alleviate confusion but also stay within the constraints of maven > versioning rules. From the discussion so far it seems like other > specs and implementations follow a versioning scheme where the spec > only uses major.minor versions and implementations use > major.minor.revision. This allows implementation to release updates > and fixes while staying compliant with a certain version of a > specification. > > Sine we are so close to releasing 2.5.1 I propose we make this change > post 2.5.1. For now Shindig will release updates to 2.5.0 using maven > qualifiers, so the next release of 2.5.0 will be versioned > 2.5.0-update1. In the future we would like to avoid using qualifiers > for anything other than alpha/beta releases because it can effect > version ranges in maven. > > Thoughts? > > -Ryan > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >>> 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? >>>>> >>>>>
