Normal semantic versioning is x.y.z, where changing z means only bug fixes or documentation changes, y is features added, and x is architectural changes. So I'd favor 2.3.0.
But I'd also favor putting out one last 2.2.x with only bug fixes, and starting 2.3 with the Maven build and feature additions. Have we agreed that the 3.0-features-on-a-2.0-base will have their own namespace, or be in the Xalan namespace, rather than in the XSLT namespace? -- /_ Joe Kesselman (he/him/his) -/ _) My Alexa skill for New Music/New Sounds fans: / https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09WJ3H657/ Caveat: Opinionated old geezer with overcompensated writer's block. May be redundant, verbose, prolix, sesquipedalian, didactic, officious, or redundant. ________________________________ From: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 7:31:50 AM To: dev@xalan.apache.org <dev@xalan.apache.org> Subject: Re: Xalan-J release discussion I don't think we should release new features in a maintenance release like 2.7.x. A new feature should be in 2.x.0. Or it maybe be worth saying this is 3.0 which would happen to match the "3" of XSLT 3. I would expect (YMMV) that a new feature release would also contain all current bug fixes from the 2.7.x branch. I think what I am saying is that we need to have a clear and simple story for users. How does the above match with everyone's work and plans? Gary On Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 6:00 AM Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mu...@gmail.com<mailto:gandhi.mu...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, Is is ok, if I could make Xalan-J 2.7.4 RC (to release, Xalan-J's XSLT 3 subset implementation, from dev repos branch xalan-j_xslt3.0) via Ant build process and make that available on this list for review? The document https://xalan.apache.org/xalan-j/xsl3/xalanj_xslt3.0_implementation_status.pdf, has latest description of Xalan-J's current XSLT 3 support. As per my analysis, all the XSLT core features are working fine (and on top of that, we've an XSLT 3 implementation), on the dev repos branch xalan-j_xslt3.0. On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 7:14 PM Joseph Kesselman <kesh...@alum.mit.edu<mailto:kesh...@alum.mit.edu>> wrote: > > If here is something you are concerned may no longer be functioning, please > check whether Xalan-Test covers that functionality, and if not consider > adding tests so it does. If something breaks we want to know about it > immediately, preferably before merging. -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@xalan.apache.org<mailto:dev-unsubscr...@xalan.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@xalan.apache.org<mailto:dev-h...@xalan.apache.org>
