Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
References: 
 <CANc7MVzFTAkLU=JO-7Qac=Nd_HYnDJjA359544+q6s3Aa1skAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1467FB.40247%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
 <CANc7MVw4kHy3mfVg3JyxRNdwCDRDNVTkvJjae_6swkVRbDkYSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+96GG5SsV-6fzrEPR35YTAOkoAZULNoxzcB9nkROiT8MD6ZJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANc7MVyb=OqrjKgbvjr7rkK7872sFryFLko1vLX_KNUO7TVL1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANc7MVyb=OqrjKgbvjr7rkK7872sFryFLko1vLX_KNUO7TVL1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:13:33 -0500
Message-ID: <7995366711885249542@unknownmsgid>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] adopt semantic versioning for cloudstack?
To: "<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428f8a14e8b704d305949f

--f46d04428f8a14e8b704d305949f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Jan 11, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Noa Resare <noa@spotify.com> wrote:

When reading the incubation policy(1) my understanding is that the
"incubating" requirement is a labeling thing for the archive file that gets
voted on, and not something that necessarily needs to be part of the
version of the release.

Looking at the release management guide(2) it seems implied that the
incubating substring is part of the project name and not the version.

Of course, I'm just speculating here. Someone with seniority within the ASF
might want to chime in, perhaps?

/noa


1) http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
2) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html


We discussed this during our 4.0.0-incubating release process, and the
advice from the mentors was to use -incubating everywhere until graduation.
Here's one of the threads (I think there were others too):
http://markmail.org/message/nnueyf7sollhxvxj

We could consider reopening the discussion, but I'm not sure it's worth it
really.

-chip


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Chip Childers
<chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Noa Resare <noa@spotify.com> wrote:

That's great. I'm sorry that I did not do a better job looking for

previous

discussion on the matter. Oh well.


No worries...  and yes, we're using semver.  In fact, that's why so

much attention is being paid to maintaining backward compatibility for

our API right now.  We have also agreed that we want to remain on the

major version 4 for our next feature release (4.1.0-incubating)


Actually, that's another thing to note (if you didn't pick up on it).

We have a requirement that all of our releases (until we graduate) are

"-incubating" release numbers.


-- 
Engineering Experience, Infrastructure tribe, Spotify

--f46d04428f8a14e8b704d305949f--