From dev-return-6954-apmail-continuum-dev-archive=continuum.apache.org@continuum.apache.org Sun May 11 20:04:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-continuum-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 76490 invoked from network); 11 May 2008 20:04:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2008 20:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 23274 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2008 20:04:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-continuum-dev-archive@continuum.apache.org Received: (qmail 23241 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2008 20:04:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@continuum.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@continuum.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@continuum.apache.org Received: (qmail 23230 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2008 20:04:56 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 May 2008 13:04:56 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of oliver.lamy@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.168 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.168] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 May 2008 20:04:03 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so2195006wfc.14 for ; Sun, 11 May 2008 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=juRKNQLz5jqfD8ob+n7yhSlDYl5FAZ4ZYPjeuNsGE1U=; b=heHW77dyaHq7svaCrMXxn5XoQK7OyVixZ+S4TzNJCjWF3m6+YS6WHWHv7SHnAFrZM9IVC1BQVnBRzN4J2SGecmD0okRJwXkhIMbT38+bisab3g+BOwbOrPOTRdNqLopw6byxrNlndUnueCXJxWfB3zERV50uHyvyYnHJkjAM/yw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=rd/F5X5xLbVJ2XPIXVSL1DgU6JCz1bPuLN2pq96GTaytzTrpFqA/ZYeS/1b6dbSZ2tcOgTMMaf315TTYB0aa8pLb7OaYrrpOMvwdpSp8sGASxxeDWdX4T8QqKAJkqAvt1iX60yztpTgolxzq6hFgTrkZV89K+652K5Vo4DX01Z4= Received: by 10.142.128.6 with SMTP id a6mr2932769wfd.206.1210536263830; Sun, 11 May 2008 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.204.5 with HTTP; Sun, 11 May 2008 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9948cb690805111304g7adc3a7em151177491576b1ee@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:04:23 +0200 From: "Olivier Lamy" Sender: oliver.lamy@gmail.com To: dev@continuum.apache.org Subject: Re: Continuum release versioning In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_9969_1606596.1210536263818" References: X-Google-Sender-Auth: df0616ffcdb5eb71 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_9969_1606596.1210536263818 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi, I prefer the httpd style too (but no real issue with the maven one). A release is a release. IHMO we don't need to use some "marketing" names :-). -- Olivier 2008/5/11 Wendy Smoak : > 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 > ------=_Part_9969_1606596.1210536263818--