Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 71606 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2005 20:22:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Feb 2005 20:22:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 41141 invoked by uid 500); 12 Feb 2005 20:22:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 41052 invoked by uid 500); 12 Feb 2005 20:22:12 -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 41036 invoked by uid 99); 12 Feb 2005 20:22:11 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of flamefew@gmail.com designates 64.233.170.192 as permitted sender) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (HELO rproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.170.192) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:22:10 -0800 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so467858rng for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:22:08 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=k3yFBXfgvlCuWnF5RGM/4WY3Cing7XhJ8Tx3Cnzs3tCML6xIrkzTYiLrwMAJXyyh1mCXvuINbhK4pvgm19Mcmg2i6dUi6jwirEcKOZz2gYWl+zZCZAUy8HmCJktOwEM8QXBKDvv8zdx2E2l+tLdOnZk1G0j8wu71rYcDAWedByY= Received: by 10.38.59.27 with SMTP id h27mr33885rna; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.86.51 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:22:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <31cc373605021212227570b476@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:22:08 -0500 From: Henri Yandell Reply-To: Henri Yandell To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] release strategy In-Reply-To: <2B64219028BBFF48B3CC957EF10B58FE5D0068@ns1018.SSSI.seagull.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <2B64219028BBFF48B3CC957EF10B58FE5D0068@ns1018.SSSI.seagull.nl> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 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" > > 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