Mailing-List: contact dev-help@continuum.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of wsmoak@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.31 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=fBGGoQ2r36YZe/MmzKnwv6D33DSgnslTwLDEk/cfXuVrhdKxk+CAbvWKV/jeTb6H6E
         M2h7/2e/OYbP5Y68NXYEqElRYr7jwvpttrnEm5CoLWxt6HMTkTr8TbZnw9PIlVVwP8Ce
         +53U4+pyP/4+Ifn+xE7kehYA6ZchDFR2ucIVg=
Message-ID: <adba96190811040954q7eec6752tbe50b002afbb3c83@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:54:30 -0600
From: "Wendy Smoak" <wsmoak@gmail.com>
To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Subject: Re: Continuum release versioning
In-Reply-To: <9948cb690805111304g7adc3a7em151177491576b1ee@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <adba96190805111205n2acf2eces6ad97bbf743050d0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9948cb690805111304g7adc3a7em151177491576b1ee@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
> 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
> :-).

It seems that we need to revisit this topic. :)

IMO if we're going to release early and (fairly) often, we need a way
to communicate quality/stability to users.

My preference is to do 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and to "label" them
(alpha/beta/milestone/GA) in the release announcement and download
page.  This means that 1.3.0 doesn't have to be feature complete, and
that we may skip versions if a problem is found and a vote doesn't
pass.

Another option is the way Archiva has decided to do it, with
milestones 1.3-M1, 1.3-M2, 1.3 then 1.3.1, 1.3.2 patch releases.  Here
we need to avoid reusing version numbers, so we might need a release
candidate process in order to make sure "1.3" doesn't get built over
and over.

Are there any modifications to the above, or other versioning schemes
we should consider?

Thanks,
-- 
Wendy