While I can appreciate that the kernel devs found the odd/even didn't work for them, as a user I appreciated it more.
That's neither here nor there, though. From a pragmatic standpoint, the A.B.C.D scheme, aside from being really long, makes POM management a pain. If Howard has one idea of what he's going to do next and I have another and Ted has a totally different one, we'll run into people bumping B, C, or D. At best you end up with a bunch of confusing version bumps. At worst, someone forgets to make the bump (and this will happen), so 5.B.C+1-SNAPSHOT ends up containing an API incompatibility that should have really been in 5.B+1-SNAPSHOT. Now, I'll concede that SNAPSHOTs are subject to breakage, but they shouldn't be so foolishly. If these concerns can be allayed using another method, I'm open to it. As I've said earlier, it's a non-trivial matter to consider, so the more quality suggestions, the better. -- Kevin Menard Servprise International, Inc. Remote reboot & power control for your network www.servprise.com +1 508.892.3823 x308 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ulrich Stärk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:40 PM > To: Tapestry development > Subject: Re: Release numbering issues > > The even/odd approach has the disadvantage that users might have to > wait > for a long time until new features are released in a "stable" release. > That's why the kernel developers have chosen to abandon this approach. > I > personally like the linux kernel versioning scheme: > > A.B.C.D > > With A being the version number which only changes if there are really > significant changes like a complete rewrite of Tapestry so this will > hopefully stay 5 for a long time. > > B changes when API changes that are not backwards-compatible are > introduced > > C will change when new features are added and > > D changes with bugfixes and is omitted upon release > > Upon releasing 5.B.C development efforts would go to 5.B.C+1 and after > some time 5.B.C+1-rc1 will be released. Release candidates are released > as long as we think the new release is not stable enought yet. Once it > has reached a point where it's stable we release 5.B.C+1 and move > forward to 5.B.C+2 > > When we have to release a version with bugfixes we add the D part to > the > release number. E.g. 5.B.C is released, development is on 5.B.C+1 but > we > have to fix a bug in 5.B.C and release it as 5.B.C.1 > > Uli > > > Robert Zeigler schrieb: > > +1 on the odd/even approach (not that we're voting, but...) > > > > Robert > > > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 2/192:53 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote: > > > >> On Feb 19, 2008 12:35 PM, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>> I'm going to have to chew this over some more because there are > some > >>> pretty important ramifications here. This is more a stream of > thoughts. > >>> > >>> If the "5" is here to stick, perhaps we should move away from the > >>> traditional MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH scheme. For example, PostgreSQL uses > >>> something similar to MAJORA.MAJORB.PATCH. E.g., the move from 8.2 > to > >>> 8.3 is considered to be just as major as the move from 7.x to 8.x. > This > >>> was done, I believe, in an attempt to curb insanely high version > >>> numbers. > >> > >> So, really, 5.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH? > >> > >> I have a *significant* interest in keeping the version number at 5. > >> > >>> > >>> Allowing deprecated cruft to amass is clearly going to impact the > >>> framework. I'd rather see a policy that states a deprecated > feature is > >>> guaranteed to stick around for maybe 3 minor releases after an > >>> appropriate replacement is provided. The pitfall here is that the > >>> number of releases is meant to give ample time for a reasonable > >>> transition, but may conflict with the notion of releasing early and > >>> often. A developer shouldn't have to worry about deprecated API > >>> removals simply because a new minor version was released as the > result > >>> of an API addition. > >> > >> I kind of interpret this as meaning a MAJOR increment means cruft > has > >> fallen out. > >> > >>> > >>> Likewise, we don't want to force someone to have to upgrade to a > new API > >>> in order get a bugfix. Drawing from my experience with T4, the > upgrade > >>> to T4.1 was not nearly as smooth as I would have hoped for, but was > >>> necessitated due to bug fixes only being available on that line. > Of > >>> course, parallel branch development is unduly harsh on a group of > >>> volunteer contributors. > >>> > >>> The old even-odd system may be interesting to look at, too. 5.1.x > is > >>> unstable and all bets are off. 5.2 is the stable version, with > 5.2.x > >>> being bugfixes. 5.3.x becomes the next development branch. It may > >>> strike a nice compromise between version diarrhea and API > stability, > >>> while allowing the dev team to produce quality releases with > minimal > >>> hoop jumping. > >> > >> This is a good idea whose true usefulness I never previously > >> appreciated. So we would follow option #2 in trunk, work on 5.1.x, > >> release more "previews", but when it reaches a stable point, number > it > >> 5.2.0 and start work on 5.3.x (which targets a stable 5.4, etc.) > >> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kevin Menard > >>> Servprise International, Inc. > >>> Remote reboot & power control for your network > >>> www.servprise.com +1 508.892.3823 x308 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:38 PM > >>>> To: Tapestry development > >>>> Subject: Release numbering issues > >>>> > >>>> Tapestry 5 is, in my opinion, nearing the point where a stable > release > >>>> is appropriate. > >>>> > >>>> Once Tapestry 5 does reach stable, we will need to careful guard > >>>> backwards compatibility, and to express that backwards > compatibility > >>>> in the version number. > >>>> > >>>> I've started keeping a log of changes that may affect people > upgrading > >>>> from one release to another: > >>>> > >>> http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/tapestry- > core/upgrade.html > >>>> > >>>> The Apache Portable Runtime includes some useful guidelines: > >>>> http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html > >>>> > >>>> MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH > >>>> > >>>> MAJOR is a major API changes, such as Tapestry 4 to Tapestry 5. > Let's > >>>> just say that's staying at "5", regardless what some dickless > troll > >>>> says. > >>>> > >>>> The pain of things is that removing something is forbidden without > a > >>>> major API change. Deprecate, yes. Remove, no. That also means > >>>> maintaining compatibility; so when you deprecate, you must keep > the > >>>> old implementation and juggle it in terms of the new > implementation. > >>>> > >>>> MINOR represents additions to the APIs. It is incremented when > adding > >>>> a new public interface (annotation, class, component, etc.), or > adding > >>>> a method to a new public interface. > >>>> > >>>> PATCH means no API change at all, it means binary compatibility. > >>>> Really, it means existing code can be upgraded without even a > >>>> recompile. End users should be able to switch between releases the > >>>> with same MAJOR.MINOR number with the expectation that nothing > breaks. > >>>> > >>>> At some point, some version of Tapestry is going to be the release > >>>> candidate, say Tapestry 5.0.12. If it survives in the wild for a > >>>> period of time (a few weeks?) we can then vote it the final > release > >>>> and update the Tapestry project site ... there will be links > >>>> identifying the stable version of Tapestry on the main page, and > on > >>>> the downloads page. > >>>> > >>>> Option #1: Add a sub-patch number. > >>>> > >>>> So let's assume that 5.0.12 is out there and there's a release > branch. > >>>> Meanwhile, work is proceeding on new features in the trunk (with a > >>>> version number of 5.0.13-SNAPSHOT). > >>>> > >>>> If there's a bug in 5.0.12 that we want to fix, I would propose > that > >>>> the work occurs in the 5.0.12 branch and that we create a new > release > >>>> candidate: 5.0.12.1. > >>>> Alternate: 5.0.12a. > >>>> > >>>> Meanwhile, work continues on 5.0.13-SNAPSHOT, but when someone > changes > >>>> an API, the number immediately jumps to 5.1.0-SNAPSHOT. > >>>> > >>>> Option #2: Assume an API change after a release > >>>> > >>>> Trunk immediately jumps to 5.1.0-SNAPSHOT. Problems in the 5.0.12 > >>>> release candidate are fixed as 5.0.13. Problem: what if the > release > >>>> candidate requires an API change as part of a bug fix? > >>>> > >>>> I think this might be the way to go, the easiest to manage. > >>>> > >>>> THOUGHTS > >>>> > >>>> You might understand, in this context, why I've been doing some > >>>> refactoring now, as it's in some ways the "last chance". > >>>> > >>>> I purposely laid out the public vs. internal structure so that > >>>> backwards compatibility would be achievable. People should not > have > >>>> an expectation that any code that imports anything from an > internal > >>>> package will be PATCH compatible. > >>>> > >>>> TapestryModule is a grey area, as it defines both public and > private > >>>> services. Again, a private service will be in an internal package > and > >>>> therefore not covered by backwards compatibility. > >>>> > >>>> Components are going to be tricky, as they don't have an public > >>>> interface to hide behind. Changes to components. > >>>> > >>>> While 5.1.x is under development, to we run it as I've been > running > >>>> 5.0.x? I.e., just patch number changes regardless. In other > words, > >>>> is backwards compatibility, as reflected in version numbers, > something > >>>> that applies to every publically available release, or only to > final > >>>> stable releases? I would tend toward the latter ... 5.1.x and > 5.1.y > >>>> may not be API compatible but that's ok, they're alpha. > >>>> > >>>> Should we incorporate alpha into the version number? 5.1-ALPHA.x? > Or > >>>> just have a release matrix on the project site that states "5.0.12 > is > >>>> stable, 5.1.x is currently alpha". > >>>> > >>>> If we assume that Option #2 is the way to go, I can change the > release > >>>> number in JIRA from "5.0 Next Release" to "5.1". > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Howard M. Lewis Ship > >>>> > >>>> Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > >>>> > >>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > --- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Howard M. Lewis Ship > >> > >> Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
