My immediate thoughts... Simon
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a left-over. We can set them to 2.0.0 as the starting point. > > A versioning strategy is more interesting as we release the code over time. > There are a few questions to be answered: > > 1) Should we always change the bundle package versions to be consistent > with the release version? > Yes > 2) How do we version the minor releases? Do we want to support the > package level compatibility within a version range? > Not sure what this means. We have had previous minor releases such as 1.3.1.Do you mean that a runtime could be made up of some 1.3 bundles mixed in with some 1.3.1 bundles? I guess that's a strategy that could be adopted if you wanted to patch a single bundle (or small number of bundles). We'd have to have a testing strategy to cover these cases though. 3) Do we need to adopt a version range or a fixed version for Import-Package > headers? > Initially a fixed version. As we get more confident we could look at ranges but I'm a little skeptical at the moment. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > *From:* Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2008 8:44 AM > *To:* tuscany-dev <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4? > > Why are all the OSGi versions for Tuscany bundles set to 1.4 and not 2.0.1 > or similar? > > Simon >
