Thanks John for the comments, appreciate it. Let me capture this on a wiki page and then hopefully others can also add to it.
We can also have a wish list to add the nice to haves, but as u said it's important to agree on the "must haves" and defined plan on how to achive them. Once I create the wiki page I will start a separate thread on road map to give it the attention it deserves. Regards, Rajith On 3/12/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah - its good to see the real reason is RPM versioning, which is fine. I'm +1 for having Mx and translate this mechanically to some RPM version. But don't make the version numbers rise too fast, and don't start too high. We will regret that. In some ways, getting a "build number" in would be nice too but maybe too early. As regards roadmaps and users - I'd just like to say we're using this quite heavily; some discussion around roadmaps would be good. We need to keep things real, and grounded. Sometimes developers forget the difference between must haves and nice to haves. For me: - Posix ACLs' on Queues (or whatever the right model is) - Good TX performance - Good, portable management between the Java/C++ brokers - Understand the multicast mapping (and propose back to the WG) Lets get the basics really good. John On 07/03/07, David Lutterkort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:50 -0500, Alan Conway wrote: > > For RPM purposes we need to use the simple numeric version.release up > > front so rpm can figure out the ordering, but I think we can safely add > > a decorator to meet the apache requirement (RPM experts can you > > confirm? I checked the rpm source code and it appears that RPM will stop > > at the first differing segment so e.g. 0.2-incubatingM2 is older than > 0.3) > > > > So the RPM versions would be: > > 0.1-incubating-M1 > > 0.2-incubating-M2 (or 0.9-incubating-M2 or 0.9-incubating-M9 at our > whim) > > etc. till we leave incubator and go to 1.0 etc. > > > > It would be simplest to have a straightforward correspondence between > > 0.x and Mx but they don't have to be related provided they both increase > > monotonically on every release. > > I can't say much about Apache's versioning requirements; the Fedora > guidelines [1] have some info on the subject. > > If you install 'rpmdevtools', you can use fedora-rpmvercmp to test how > various versions will get ordered. In general, things are a little > simpler if the version/release are made up of numbers and '.' only, > though there are cases where the version/release have additional 'stuff' > embedded in them. > > David > > [1] > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-18aa467fc6925455e44be682fd336667a17e8933 > >
