I personally like the "x.y.z" convention as well, as it provides more
flexibility for small maintenance/bug-fix releases. A casual quick
scan through various jakarta projects seems to show about an even
split between projects that use "x.y.z" and "x.y" conventions.
Craig: is your objection merely a "x.y.z" vs. "x.y" convention? I.e.,
do you agree with the spirit of the vote, which is that the next
release will be "1", regardless of whether we call it "1", "1.0",
"1.0.0", or "1.0.0.0"? And when you say "Let's drop the trailing .0
and reserve the third digit for patch releases", do you mean that you
would like to see an initial release be "1.0", and if there is a
small patch release after that, it would be "1.0.1"? Or are you
saying that you would prefer all releases to be of the "x.y" format?
On May 23, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Phill Moran wrote:
Why don't we follow (I believe the SUN standard) convention of
using the three
digits as in 1.2.3.
A change from 1.2.3 to 1.2.4 is a bug fix release no new
functionality and fully
backward compatible.
A change from 1.2.3 to 1.3 can have new functionality and bug fixes
but is fully
backwards compatible.
Finally a change from 1.2.3 to 2.0 is new functionality, bug fixes
and no
guarantee of backward compatibility
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 23, 2007 8:41 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] move current release to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
How do 1.0 and 1.0.0 differ? The way I've done things in the past,
the first
major release is called 1.0.0, the first patch release 1.0.1, etc.
Then, when I
say "1.0", what I really mean is "the latest code in the 1.0
branch, whatever
that is right now".
When we did Kodo releases in the past, we tried hard to not do new
feature
development in a maintenance branch. So, following that
methodology, once we
released 1.0.0, we would make a 1.0 branch, which would
periodically have tags
on it when we release 1.0.1 etc. As soon as 1.0 was out, all the
interesting new
cool stuff would then go into the mainline, which would be 1.1.0-
SNAPSHOT.
(Unless, of course, we had already cut a branch for 1.1 also, in
which case the
mainline would be 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT, etc.)
-Patrick
On 5/23/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1
I like the idea of having our first release out of the incubator
be 1.0.
Let's drop the trailing .0 and reserve the third digit for patch
releases. This brings up the issue of release naming which we've
deferred until now. I think we need to decide what we call releases
and at what level we support backward compatibility.
I'll just emphasize my earlier comments about going through the open
JIRA issues and really making sure that we'll address the major
functionality, performance, and usability deficiencies. So this will
affect the schedule but not the naming of the release.
Craig
On May 23, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
We recently discussed committing ourselves to the next release being
OpenJPA 1.0.0. The general consensus seems to be in favor, so I'm
putting it to a vote.
+1 Make the current release be 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT, which indicates that
the next released version will be 1.0.0
-1 Leave the current release to be 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT 0 Don't care
This vote will remain open until 12pm PST on 5/26.
I'll start the voting off by recording my vote: +1
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
