ps we could also go for an iteration release number in the format of
shindig-0.8.1-22
(where 22 would be the 22nd release that supports the 0.8.1 spec
completely), but then we have no way to communicate things like 'this
version changes the internal API'
So I think we either should break the correlation between the spec and
shindig release numbers (after all it implements the specs, but isn't the
spec right? Just like firefox 3 implements http 1.1 :and there's no
correlation between the 2)), or we should change shindig's development model
and think about how to sync spec versions with shindig internals /
experiments.
-- Chris
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> plus trying to keep the versions synced can also lead to lots of confusion
>
> If we implement 0.8.1 completely (shindig version 0.8 ?), then add some
> previews of 0.9 functionality (proxied content) is the shindig version 0.8
> or 0.9 or 0.8.1?
>
> And if we fix some bug fixes would the next version be 0.8.2 ? And would
> that make people believe there is a 0.8.2 version of the spec? :)
>
> I guess going for a double release number *could* work, ie something like
> shindig-1.0.0-0.8.1, but i'm not sure if that's very 'pretty'
>
> To be honest, I would be happy to go for a 1.0.0, and depend on the docs +
> site (which we REALLY should address some day, things like: change logs,
> docs, blog, info, etc) to communicate which version supports what
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'll chime in and mention that several people that I've talked to have
>> > been
>> > > confused about this. I think it would be great if the Shindig release
>> > > version were to match the latest spec version that it fully
>> implements.
>> >
>> >
>> > The architectural version can match (opensocial-0.x ==
>> > shindig-0.[yyyy.zzzz]), but Shindig will never match the opensocial
>> version
>> > exactly. If I change a major interface in the code, we're still
>> > implementing
>> > the same opensocial version but we can not continue using the same
>> version
>> > number.
>> >
>>
>> This sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> > On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Dan Peterson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hey folks,
>> > >>
>> > >> I am really excited that we're getting to an OpenSocial v0.8 (well,
>> > 0.8.1)
>> > >> compliant release. I think we'll learn a lot about making Shindig a
>> > great
>> > >> piece of infrastructure through these releases.
>> > >>
>> > >> To Ian's question, I think we should be careful about the version
>> > number:
>> > >> it
>> > >> seems confusing if we have OpenSocial at v0.8, but Shindig at v1.0.
>> > >> Shindig's mission/scope is to implement the OpenSocial spec, so it's
>> > >> awkward
>> > >> to have different numbering systems for the releases of the
>> > >> implementation.
>> > >> I certainly realize that versions are just arbitrary numbers, but
>> > sending
>> > >> the message that Shindig is at 1.0 is over-promising with regards to
>> > >> potentially breaking changes and stability, given the state of the
>> > >> "underlying" spec.
>> > >>
>> > >> My thought was that this would be a release of Shindig v0.8.
>> > >>
>> > >> -Dan
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't expect this to be controversial, but I should as just for
>> > >>> process.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Proposing
>> > >>> Branch shindig to
>> > >>> branches/1.0.x with a version of 1-SNAPSHOT
>> > >>> increment trunk version to 1.1-SNAPSHOT indicating 1.1 will be the
>> next
>> > >>> release.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The version numbers are more for Java than for Php, but I guess
>> there
>> > >>> might
>> > >>> be a version number in the php code ?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I have done a dry run of the maven release plugin and there are no
>> > >>> issues,
>> > >>> so it should be a simple one command process. (it also branches the
>> php
>> > >>> code
>> > >>> because we left a pom in the base directory)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Any comments ?
>> > >>> Happy with the version numbers ?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Ian
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > > --
>> > > Tim Moore
>> > > Atlassian Plugin Developer
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
