On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Kalle! > > I wasn't clear with my words: I don't think 5.3.0 isn't production-ready > now. I haven't even used it yet :'(, so I can't say anything bad about it. I > meant 5.3.0 is not final. > > 5.3.0, now, is an alpha release, so I think the version and JAR names should > have some suffix about it somehow. The JBoss conventions, for example, are > these (http://community.jboss.org/wiki/JBossProjectVersioning): > > major.minor.micro.Alpha[n] > major.minor.micro.Beta[n] > major.minor.micro.CR[n] > major.minor.micro.Final > > I don't like suffixes for final versions nor the use of uppercase letters > nor I think Tapestry needs 4 release stages (just alpha or beta and final, > besides snapshots, should be enough), but I guess we could adapt it. I don't want to put it on like if something is right and something else wrong but simply what is right for the project itself so... May I suggest you to read this[1] presentation and take your conclusions. OpenBSD is an open source operating system project and is by far a lot more complicated then a web framework. It has a streamlined release process which results in a series of successful releases, plus the OpenBSD's snapshots are by far a lot more stable then a lot of other operating system "stable releases", I see Tapestry release and snapshots story very similar (especially in term of stability) Cheers [1] http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release_engineering/mgp00001.html -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
