Alex, On 10/30/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would rather start from 2.1 than from 1.5 because it shows that it has > a big change more clearly. But we lose 2.0. That's why I talked about > switching the meaning of even and odd. :) I really liked that switch it was a great idea but we already have 1.0 as stable and switching our semantics now is going to create a confusing situation.
Yeah it's too confusing to be an option.
"Minor numbers are used to connotate changes to features and APIs in the > product with minor changes which may or may not introduce compatibility > issues." > > 'May or may not' sounds too ambiguous. Could you clarify it? It's a matter of degree is all I am saying. Let me elaborate ... Say you changed a couple things in the MINA API in the 1.1 branch. These changes break a few things in terms of compatibility. Say a few method signatures changed. This IMHO is not a big deal for users to have to deal with, especially if the API is getting better. But it does break compatibility with 1.0 since users cannot seemlessly swap jars from 1.0.x and 1.1.x right? But the degree of breakage is negligible and will not require someone to re-implement their application. At most a few lines of code will change to adjust and things need to be recompiled.
It makes sense. It's the traditional view on version numbering. I thought we are using something new which can introduce a brand-new API while we jump from 1.0 to 1.1. Most things have been clarified now. Now if you drastically alter MINA's API for example and the principals
behind it change in 1.1.x users may have to rewrite major portions of their application using MINA. This is not a good practice IMO. You probably should jump past a few minor versions or jump to a new major version.
Very true, and that's why we are trying to call the next major release '2.0', and we are talking about the prior version number before we release MINA 2.0. I completely agree with Emmanuel that ApacheDS and MINA are very different in this point of view. The definitions of stability of a framework and a stand-alone software can't be the same. Should we choose different version numbering scheme for these two? Does this clarify my things more? Very enough. Cheers, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
