activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Tully" <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ release process - two queries
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:47:01 GMT
thanks Jim, and I guess it is not typical to have a 5.1.1.1 so three
will very much be the norm. I can live with that.

2008/9/9 Jim Gomes <e.semog@gmail.com>:
> Hi Gary,
> I don't know anything about the ActiveMQ release process, but I will
> chime-in on the version numbering.  I think the three-digit numbering should
> be kept.  It makes things very consistent.  I am not a fan of long strings
> of version numbers, but I think the three digits are the minimum necessary
> to convey all of the import information about the build.  If we know that
> there might be minor rev numbers (i.e., the third digit), then that number
> should always be present for easier sorting/comparison either by a human or
> a computer.
>
> That's my $0.02.0 cents.  :)
>
> - Jim
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> In cutting a first release candidate of AMQ 5.2 two small issues arise
>> that mean a re-cut.
>>
>> 1) I accepted the maven release default version numbers, and based of
>> the parent pom the svn tag is activemq-parent-5.2.
>> I guess I should have inserted a different value at the prompt during
>> release to make it activemq-5.2 , but is a little error prone.
>> I am wondering if the parent pom changed its name to activemq, how
>> damaging would that be?
>> From a release perspective, it means that we just hit return (accept
>> defaults) during the release execution.
>> Maven activemq dependencies are typically on activemq-core. Would
>> anyone notice a change to the name of the parent pom?
>>
>>
>> 2) the number of digits in the version number, why the extra 0?
>> I see 4.1, then 5.1.0, but in the poms, we have 5.2. Has this been
>> discussed and what is the outcome? I like the idea of keeping the
>> version digits at a minimum.
>> 5.1, 5.1.0, 5.1.1 etc. but not 5.1.0.
>>
>> FWIW, the current candidate is at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~gtully/staging-repos/activemq-5.2/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/5.2
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gary.
>>
>

Mime
View raw message