continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wendy Smoak" <wsm...@gmail.com>
Subject Continuum release versioning
Date Sun, 11 May 2008 19:05:47 GMT
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?

-- 
Wendy

Mime
View raw message