Simon,

Unfortunately, with the way Maven 2 works, if you don't have a version number 
at the beginning, you are asking for problems, especially for maven plugins.   
I've gone over this with the Maven folks a couple times now.   The maven 
version numbers should ALWAYS be:
#.#[.#]*[-text][-SNAPSHOT]
or
#.#[.#]-#      (for updates to a release), like 1.0-1 or something.

After thinking about it, I might suggest:
0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
where we use the SCA version number.   That would kind of keep us from going 
to a 1.0 release until the spec is 1.0.   I'm not sure if that's a bad thing 
or not.


Dan


On Wednesday June 21 2006 5:12 am, Simon Nash wrote:
> I think M2 is better than 0.9 because it simply says that this
> is the next milestone after M1, rather than carrying some kind
> of "90% complete" implication.
>
> However I'm not quite sure about the "1.0" designation at the
> beginning.  This seems to imply that when incubation is complete,
> we will immediately deliver a 1.0 release.  This is certainly
> one possible (and desirable) scenario, but I can imagine other
> circumstances that might make us choose to do a post-incubation
> release at some level that is less than 1.0.  For example, what
> if at the time we exit incubation, the current published SCA spec
> is only at a 0.95 level?  Might we choose to deliver a 0.95
> Tuscany release matching that spec, and upgrade to a 1.0 release
> when the spec upgrades to 1.0 and we have matching code?
>
> I don't really want to get into a debate now about the probability
> of such a situation arising.  But if there is even a small chance
> that we might not jump immediately from incubation to a 1.0 release,
> then I'd suggest using something like "incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT" to
> give us a bit more flexibility down the road.
>
>    Simon
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> > Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >> 1.0-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
> >>
> >> is probably the "technical" version number we should be using.   It
> >> specifically states we are working on the snapshot version of
> >> "1.0-incubating-M2" which I assume will be the version we use when we
> >> release M2.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> On Tuesday June 20 2006 12:29 pm, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> >>> We currently have <version>incubating-M1</version> in all our pom.xml
> >>> files. What do you think we should use now?
> >>> SNAPSHOT?
> >>> 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >>> 0.1-SNAPSHOT?
> >>>
> >>> Any opinions?
> >
> > This makes sense to me but what do others think?
> >
> > If I remember correctly at some point I had proposed 0.9 and some of us
> > thought that a 0.9 version number could give false expectations in terms
> > of stability/completeness. Are we running the same risk with a
> > 1.0-incubating-M2? Or do you think that having -M2 at the end makes it
> > clear that this will only be a Milestone release and not a 1.0 release?
> >
> > If there is no objections, I'll change the version numbers to
> > 1.0-incubating-M2 on Thursday morning.

-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to