On 27 Nov 2008, at 11:36, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Any comments ?
Folks, I might be late to the show (the whole discussion seems to be
happening on Nov 20th inside a few hours [1]), but please:
This versioning scheme (along the spec) is bad. Shindig will be
considered "not ready" by not hitting a 1.x version.
By that arguing, the Apache Webserver would be at
1.1-<some-large-number>. What if you want to rearchitect the internal
code of Shindig and need to reflect that in a version number?
0.8.1-2.1 ?
One of the most frequent questions on the list in the future will be
"where is version 0.8.0?", closely followed by "where is version
1.0.0?"
You basically tie the version cycle of the software to the version
cycle of the spec.
Please, use apr versioning (or linux versioning or whatever three
digit versioning is considered these days) and start with a sane
(e.g. 1.0.0) version.
Happy with the version numbers ?
No, not at all. I am -1 on the 0.8.1 naming shebang. Let's see if that
count for something here.
IMHO, we do need to address this, as Henning points out the
conversation took place in a few hours, and his opinion should count
for something. I hope thats not going to be too disruptive.
Its very easy to change the branch and version numbers at this stage,
it will not be nearly as easy once a release is done.
Ian
Ciao
Henning
--
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen - Palo Alto, California, U.S.A.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "We're Germans and we use Unix.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] That's a combination of two demographic
groups
known to have no sense of humour
whatsoever."
-- Hanno Mueller,
de.comp.os.unix.programming
