Hi, On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Pulla Venkat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > version numbers in jackrabbit appear like 1.1,1.2,1.3 etc. not like 1,2,3 > etc.. For our application version numbers should like 1.0,2.0 etc. we may > convert numbers 1.1 ,1.2 etc to 1.0 ,2.0 . > > When does jackrabbit allow 1.0 to 2.0 transition in version name. Does this > happen in any scenario? > I couldn't understand the logic for version names being 1.1 ,1.2 etc. Is > 1.2.1 ,1.2.1.1 etc also possible.
We use a MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH version numbering scheme: The MAJOR version number is increased when there are major API or architectural changes that may well require client applications to be changed or at least verified that they still work correctly. The foreseeable MAJOR version number upgrades (Jackrabbit 2.x and 3.x) are the upgrade to JCR 2.0 and a potential switch to a new internal persistence architecture. See the discussions on the dev@ mailing list for more details. The MINOR version number is increased when new features or improvements are introduced. These upgrades should be fully backwards compatible, but may require some configuration changes or other manual setup (reindexing, etc.) described in the release notes. We are currently working on Jackrabbit 1.5 and will possibly also release Jackrabbit 1.6 before going to 2.0. The PATCH version number is increased for releases that only contain bug fixes. It's possible to upgrade to a patch release simply by replacing the upgraded Jackrabbit jar files and restarting the repository. Note that by convention we have dropped the final .0 patch number from minor releases, so for example the "1.4.0" release is called "1.4" and the "2.0.0" release will be called "2.0". BR, Jukka Zitting
