commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [lang] release strategy
Date Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:22:08 GMT
Only question is whether  to specify a 0 for the 0th maintenance. Not
a big deal though, I've setup the following release branch:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_2_1_BRANCH

the naming matches the syntax we used for 1.0 when making 1.0.1. I
know it could be a lot better (especially as SVN doesn't barf on . as
CVS does), but I'm going with consistency for the moment.

I'll start tweaking that towards a release. Trunk is 2.2-dev now. 

Hen

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:36:13 -0500, Gary Gregory
<ggregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> Personally, I've always liked the following numbering scheme:
> 
> Major.Minor.Maintenance.
> 
> Gary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 2:08 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] release strategy
> 
> Personally I find the three digit release numbers just confusing. I much
> 
> prefer to reserve the third digit for essential patches.
> 
> So, I'm happy to have a 2.1-branch, but I want the release to be 2.1,
> not
> 2.1.0 or 2.1.1.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
> > I'm very tempted to try the branch then release strategy, and wondered
> > what people thought about the idea. It might suggest a slight change
> > to the version number style:
> >
> > Create 2.1 branch.
> > Make changes to 2.1 branch until we're ready for release.
> > Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.0 tag.
> > ... later
> > Change 2.1 branch until we're ready for release
> > Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.1tag.
> > ... later in parallel
> > Change trunk until we're near a release
> > Create 2.2 branch (or 3.0)
> > Change 2.2 until ready
> > Tag 2.2 with 2.2.0
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > If we called it 2.1-head or something, it wouldn't need the version
> > change, it just feels more logical to go with a 2.1.0 release than a
> > 2.1 one if we use this style of development.
> >
> > Anyway, it seems to me that this fits us more nowadays. We end up with
> > the text package slowing down because it's not planned for the next
> > release, and having to avoid various other bugzilla requests as
> > they're not wanting to be fixed until later.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message