activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jim Gomes" <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ release process - two queries
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:02:15 GMT
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 <> 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:
> Thanks,
> Gary.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message