On 10/06/2010 05:16 PM, Alex Busenius wrote: > I'm totally +1 on synchronizing version numbers, this has absolutely no > disadvantages vs. the current situation (we are already always releasing > the apps together with the core), but makes it much easier to release > and to use. > > Alex > I think that this is a very good idea. Personally I am confused too with the current versioning scheme.
In order to maintain a certain degree of freedom for making application evolve independently in the timeframe of a new XE release, we can adopt a versioning scheme like: XE Appliaction version = XEmajor.XEminor.XEpatchlevel.applicationversion where XEmajor.XEminor.XEpatchlevel should always match the target XE release where the application can be installed. applicationversion is an additional number for making new releases of the application independently of XE. At each XE release every application will have a version bump to match the new XE version, no matter if there are acutal changes in the application (i.e., XE is branched with all its applications). The previous versioning scheme can be a bit ugly in the case where XEpatchlevel == 0 and applicationversion > 0 (e.g., Administration Application 2.5.0.4 -> 5th release of the Administration application compatible with XE 2.5 before that XE 2.5.1 or 2.6 is released) But the invariant will always be: the first 3 components of the application version will tell the user what is the XE version it is compatible with. This convention can also be enforced to 3rd party applications. -Fabio > On 10/06/2010 02:28 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: >> I have been observing problems with the versioning scheme which we are using. >> >> Because applications are not branched along with core, when a bugfix version >> of a stable branch is >> released, new versions of applications are typically pulled in. This means >> that `experimental' code >> is being introduced into a `stable' branch in a bugfix version. This is not >> the path I would choose >> but more importantly we can't honestly say that our code goes through a >> milestone/release candidate >> verification process if some of the code is allowed to bypass it. >> This situation has caused me to make a mistake which I was able to correct >> during the release >> without major issue, I think the same issue is behind the release of 2 bogus >> versions (2.4.1 and 2.4.2) >> >> There is another issue, users who want to mix and match applications to >> build their own wiki are >> faced with a set of version numbers and no way to know what is compatible >> with what. A user who I >> spoke with last night had this very problem. We could publish a >> compatibility matrix but if we were >> to show all the versions a given application is compatible with, that would >> require testing each >> application version against each core version and I think we need to >> concentrate on testing what >> gets released in XE. >> >> Both of these problems would be fixed if version numbers were synchronized >> and everything was >> branched for a release. Relevant questions which come to mind are "do we >> need the capability to >> release applications at separate times?" and "is there no way to do that >> with synchronized version >> numbers?" >> >> Am I missing any other reasons? >> Should this not become a proposal? >> >> Caleb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> devs@xwiki.org >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
