continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Thakur <>
Subject Re: Continuum release versioning
Date Mon, 12 May 2008 23:29:49 GMT

I am not sure why we need to change release versioning and I don't see a 
difference how Eclipse milestones releases differ from beta(s) or RC(s) 
that we have for Maven. Eclipse milestones do not freeze APIs until 
later stages.

If we want to put production quality releases out there, we have the 
option of planning and releasing 'Release Candidates' more oft, such 
that they get used/tested by community.


Wendy Smoak wrote:
> We've been discussing how to version releases over at Archiva, and
> seem to have settled on milestones ->  final ->  patch releases.  No
> more -alpha and -beta designations in the filename.
> Brett summarized the options and gave his opinions:
>> - Maven style (alpha, beta, final, point release)
>> - Eclipse style (M1, M2, M3, final, point release - though Eclipse don't have the
last ones)  [Spring style then? -ws]
>> - httpd style (.0.0, .0.1, .0.2, .0.3)
>> And here are [Brett's] opinions:
>> - I'm tired of the Maven style. I've heard people actually saying it's ok to break
things because it's just an alpha. I would rather encourage development practices that mean
every release should be production quality.
>> - But I'm a realist - releases need broader testing to assess production quality.
>> - milestones seem more akin to a set roadmap per release that gets done in stages,
rather than timeboxing
>> - httpd-style can be a little confusing to users, at least at first (will the real
release please stand up?). I think this is mitigated by only putting the final final releases
on release repo and mirrors
>> - httpd-style is not very effective for "milestones", since you end up making the
20th or 30th release your first "real" release
>> - Hudson uses the extreme of the last style (everything is a feature release, everything
is a final release)
> My preference is httpd-style, where it's just a number and you apply a
> quality designation afterwards.  But I can live with milestones. :)  I
> _don't_ like baking the quality into the version number.
> Any thoughts on this for Continuum, before we simply go on using the
> strategy we inherited from Maven?

View raw message