We're talking open source software here.

You've *never* heard of the scheme Gili were talking about, have you?

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robbie Vanbrabant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Bob here. I'd even say that the version of any third party
> software you use is 30% about marketing, 30% about common sense 40% about a
> versioning scheme. A dependency manager can probably get to the common sense
> or versioning scheme, but you will never beat marketing. :-)
>
> Cheers
> Robbie
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> While this is somewhat true, it doesn't preclude tools for managing
>> compatibility on version numbers as long as it supports different schemes.
>> Savant for example supports, major, minor and patch compatibility as well as
>> custom built solutions. The key is that a project has to pick a versioning
>> scheme and stick to it. If Guice wants to be compatible between 1 and 2 and
>> NOT 3, then version 1 and 2 are "major compatible" while version 3 is
>> "minor" compatible and Savant can still figure it out.
>> Forcing tools and builds to manage every projects compatibility rules for
>> every version is not only annoying, but tedious and often error prone and
>> wrong. This is one of the reasons some tools just grab the latest version
>> and don't check compatibility. They don't want to bother with managing reams
>> of compatibility information. Savant specifically doesn't do this, but it
>> also doesn't go for the custom DSL for crazy ad hoc compatibility and naming
>> either.
>> Okay, enough DM ranting. I'll just say that Guice should pick a DM scheme
>> and stick to it. I personally really don't like this 1 and 2 are compatible
>> but 3 isn't stuff. I'd much rather see the next release named 1.1 or 1.2 if
>> it is compatible or just calling it not compatible and have a little more
>> freedom with the APIs. Either way works for me. But that's just from coming
>> from a strict DM guy.
>> -bp
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Bob Lee wrote:
>>
>> When it comes to versioning schemes, the only thing you can count on is
>> that no two projects will use exactly the same conventions. Any tool that
>> cares about whether two versions are compatible should rely on explicit meta
>> data, not numbering/naming conventions.
>>
>> As for releasing often, we release code every time we check in. Many
>> people already build Guice themselves and test out the latest features. If
>> we decide that Guice needs some sort of pre-release release before 2.0,
>> we'll do it, but right now, I don't think we'll need one.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And, as Gili states, "2.0" by itself markedly states that there are
>>> major, incompatible API changes. My personal understanding of the OSS
>>> world versioning scheme is rather like Gili's, apparently, where only
>>> revisions (the 0.0.x) don't have any API changes. And, as James here
>>> mentions, you also have the alpha, beta, rc nomenclature to ride on.
>>>
>>> On Gili's mail, I do not agree with him that it at this point is okay
>>> to "take your time". Get something out - it's been way over a year.
>>> There this saying: "Release early, release often". That's my
>>> understanding of open source, and that at least seems like how you get
>>> community building, involvement, input and innovation.
>>> Knowing that you've *obviously* read it, here's just for quick context
>>> reference:
>>>
>>>  
>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html
>>>
>>> Don't end up as The Google Cathedral! :-)
>>>
>>> IMHO blahblah, of course.
>>>
>>> Endre.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"google-guice" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to