-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck,
On 8/25/2010 11:15 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net] >> Subject: Re: Tomcat Version Numbers > >> why not have a tag progression that looks like this: > >> 6.0.0-alpha >> 6.0.0-beta1 >> 6.0.0-beta2 > > Because there are no changes to an x.y.z level, regardless of how its marking > progresses. _Any_ changes require a new dot number. The 6.0.0-alpha and > 6.0.0 are identical; only the labeling changed to indicate that the > particular level had progressed through more testing. Your suggestion causes > no end of confusion, since there will be flavors of 6.0.0 running around with > different content. Okay. Does that mean that: [DIR] v6.0.2-alpha/ 2006-11-16 00:02 - [DIR] v6.0.2-beta/ 2006-11-16 00:02 - [DIR] v6.0.2/ 2006-11-16 00:02 - ...means that 6.0.2, 6.0.2-alpha, and 6.0.2-beta are all the exact same sets of files, just with different tag names? >> Again, this is partly because I feel a certain sense of order which >> requires releases to be X.0.0. > > That makes absolutely no sense to me. *shrug* >> My original question was sparked by the fact that 7.0.2 was released >> which would, merely by the version number, indicate to me that it was a >> stable bugfix release to the 7.0 line. > > 7.0.2 never got out of beta, nor did any of its 7.0.x predecessors. Why > would you think it's stable? > >> downloading the highest version number available >> (7.0.2) might not be such a good idea. > > A version won't make it into the archives unless it's alpha, beta, or stable > - and it will be marked as such, so you have a pretty good idea of how well > it's been exercised. If you're looking at SVN, you're on your own. I can download 7.0.2 today (without fiddling with SVN) by going to http://tomcat.apache.org/download-70.cgi (no warning about it's beta-ness before you get to this page) and then the only place on the page where you might get the idea that this isn't ready for production is the word "BETA" in the title of the release section. It's quite easy to miss. (Note that this isn't a proper title, even: it's an <a> within a <font> within a <td> and therefore has no structural significance to the page. But that's a completely separate issue.) - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkx1Z4UACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDNawCeJEJbgyF9fQjYDKlm9R2FRhDO HG8Amwe1/EPaEmaA595PLjfmaeS8B9t7 =iNxE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
