This release includes a new package and integrated testing, so I'd say
it's safe to go for the 2.2
The org.apache.river namechange will cause some breakage, so it's safe
to call it 3.0, 3.0 will include some java 5 constructs also.
Cheers,
Peter.
Jonathan Costers wrote:
Actually, when I carefully read the posted definitions, what we are
about to release really more looks like a point release...
So 2.1.2?
And when we do the com.sun.jini -> org.apache.river namechange, move to
2.2?
Just a thought..
Op zondag 04-10-2009 om 21:42 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Peter
Firmstone:
+1
Peter.
Jonathan Costers wrote:
What about this:
- Previous release was 2.1.1 (AR1).
-> apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
- We are developing for 2.2, hence all Hudson builds are named
2.2-SNAPSHOT
-> apache-river-2.2-SNAPSHOT-incubating
- When we release 2.2 (AR2) we change version to 2.2
-> apache-river-2.2-incubating
- After building 2.2, we set version to 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT (or whatever
version we decide we should go to after 2.2)
-> apache-river-2.2.1-SNAPSHOT-incubating
This would be compatible with Maven repositories, allowing us to publish
all snapshot builds. It would IMHO also make more sense then what we are
doing now (i.e. all snapshot builds are currently still named 2.1.1).
Best
Jonathan
Op zaterdag 03-10-2009 om 15:24 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Peter
Firmstone:
Ok, how about the following release version scheme?
Major.Minor.Point
-Point Release: No API changes, bug fixes, internal implementation
refactoring only.
-Minor Release: Expanded API for existing packages, new utility
packages,
no breaking of API backward compatibility.
Bug fixes, reimplementation or refactoring of existing
API functionality.
-Major Release: New Features, Packages & API, where those API
Changes could
potentially break backward compatibility and require
recompilation for existing applications.
I'm not suggesting we break backward compatibility, just that if we do,
it'll definitely be a major point release.
Cheers,
Peter.
