Just a quick follow up to this: 2.0 works perfectly fine in OSGi. Even the version number 2 would work. Either one gets automatically expanded to 2.0.0, or they're interpreted as the same version number regardless.
On 4 February 2014 17:48, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I prefer the aesthetics of 2.0, but prefer 2.0.0 due to semver. Then > again, as long as we make the OSGi version 2.0.0, we're good. That's > configurable in the OSGi pom.xml files. > > > On 4 February 2014 05:02, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I haven't really heard anything to make me change my mind. 2.0. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:44 PM, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> >> wrote: >> >> Maybe he'll respond again tonight and let us know if he's set on 2.0 or >> fine with 2.0.0. :-) >> >> N >> >> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >> I'm happy to let Ralph pick, either way is fine with me. >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Nick Williams < >> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >> >>> Matt and Christian did, however, point out semver. There's something to >>> be said about following a community practice, and use of x.y.z far >>> outweighs use of x.y in OSS. >>> >>> N >>> >>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> >>> Nick, >>> >>> I do not think you can go wrong by writing 2.0 in the book. I'm OK with >>> 2.0 and 2.0.0 even though 2.0.0 feels redundant. Like someone else posted I >>> find the .FINAL and -RELEASE and whatnot ludicrous. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Nick Williams < >>> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Well well well. I'm sensing a lot of disagreement. Too bad my book goes >>>> to the printers Wednesday. I have a feeling no matter what I put in it >>>> there's a good chance it'll change. :-P >>>> >>>> Any way we can come to a consensus in the next 6-8 hours or so (by 9 >>>> a.m. CST)? >>>> >>>> N >>>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: >>>> >>>> Plus, if we're really keen on OSGi support, note that OSGi assumes >>>> version numbers follow the semantic versioning scheme. Producers use an API >>>> like [1.1, 1.2), whereas consumers use an API like [1.1, 2.0). Yes, those >>>> are half-open intervals, and yes, that is the official notation. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3 February 2014 15:41, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it's not >>>>> a dumb >>>>> > version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm happy with it. >>>>> >>>>> Sticking with semver might be a good idea. Its a language many >>>>> understand >>>>> and we should try to stick with that lanugage as well. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Keep it simple: 2.0. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Gary >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> >> From: Christian Grobmeier >>>>> >> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00) >>>>> >> To: Log4J Developers List >>>>> >> Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> I had thought it would be 2.0. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Nick Williams >>>>> >>>> <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the >>>>> printers >>>>> >>>> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was >>>>> >>>> extendable!), and I need to know what the Maven artifact GA >>>>> version >>>>> >>>> number will be. I print the new Maven artifacts used in each >>>>> chapter >>>>> >>>> on the first page of the chapter as a guide to the user. Log4j is >>>>> the >>>>> >>>> only library I'm using that isn't yet GA. I want to be sure the >>>>> >>>> version numbers I'm printing are correct. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Here are the options that I can think of for the GA release: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> 2.0 >>>>> >>>> 2.0-GA >>>>> >>>> 2.0.GA >>>>> >>>> 2.0.Final >>>>> >>>> 2.0.RELEASE >>>>> >>>> 2.0.0 >>>>> >>>> 2.0.0-GA >>>>> >>>> 2.0.0.GA >>>>> >>>> 2.0.0.Final >>>>> >>>> 2.0.0.RELEASE >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> So, which is it going to be? I assume that eventually we're going >>>>> to >>>>> >>>> have a 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc., so it would seem to me that, whatever >>>>> GA >>>>> >>>> is, it should start with 2.0.0. Doesn't seem to make a lot of >>>>> sense >>>>> >>>> to go from 2.0 to 2.0.1. However, all of our beta releases have >>>>> been >>>>> >>>> 2.0-Betan. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Nick >>>>> >>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>> log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --- >>>>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de >>>>> >> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL >>>>> >> @grobmeier >>>>> >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL >>>>> @grobmeier >>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>