Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 82481 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2005 22:07:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Feb 2005 22:07:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 30084 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2005 22:07:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 30006 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2005 22:07:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 29993 invoked by uid 99); 7 Feb 2005 22:07:52 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from smtp813.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (HELO smtp813.mail.ukl.yahoo.com) (217.12.12.203) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:07:51 -0800 Received: from unknown (HELO SCOLEBOURNE) (commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org@81.154.207.149 with poptime) by smtp813.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2005 22:07:48 -0000 Message-ID: <002301c50d61$773d6bf0$95cf9a51@SCOLEBOURNE> From: "Stephen Colebourne" To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" References: <31cc373605020616525e8b5d30@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lang] release strategy Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:07:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0505-2, 05/02/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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" > 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